{"id":5222,"date":"2025-06-23T10:41:06","date_gmt":"2025-06-23T10:41:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=5222"},"modified":"2025-10-13T08:09:23","modified_gmt":"2025-10-13T08:09:23","slug":"patent-must-show-non-obvious-technical-advance-over-prior-art","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-must-show-non-obvious-technical-advance-over-prior-art\/","title":{"rendered":"Patent Must Show Non-Obvious Technical Advance Over Prior Art"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Lummus_Novolen_Technology_GmbH_vs_Assistant_Controller_of_Patents\"><\/span>Lummus Novolen Technology GmbH v\/s Assistant Controller of Patents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><b>Case Summary<\/b><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-must-show-non-obvious-technical-advance-over-prior-art\/#Lummus_Novolen_Technology_GmbH_vs_Assistant_Controller_of_Patents\" >Lummus Novolen Technology GmbH v\/s Assistant Controller of Patents<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-must-show-non-obvious-technical-advance-over-prior-art\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-must-show-non-obvious-technical-advance-over-prior-art\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-must-show-non-obvious-technical-advance-over-prior-art\/#Legal_Issue\" >Legal Issue<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-must-show-non-obvious-technical-advance-over-prior-art\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-must-show-non-obvious-technical-advance-over-prior-art\/#Appellants_Reliance\" >Appellant&#8217;s Reliance<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-must-show-non-obvious-technical-advance-over-prior-art\/#Respondents_Reliance\" >Respondent&#8217;s Reliance<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-must-show-non-obvious-technical-advance-over-prior-art\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-must-show-non-obvious-technical-advance-over-prior-art\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-must-show-non-obvious-technical-advance-over-prior-art\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-must-show-non-obvious-technical-advance-over-prior-art\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>This case revolves around the refusal by the Controller of Patents to grant a patent to Lummus Novolen Technology GmbH for a claimed invention involving an improved Ziegler-Natta catalyst system. The appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenged the rejection on the ground that the invention lacked an &#8220;inventive step&#8221; under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act. The High Court of Delhi adjudicated whether the appellant\u2019s invention involved sufficient technical advance and non-obviousness to merit patent protection.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Lummus Novolen Technology GmbH is a German entity specializing in polymer process technologies. On May 19, 2015, the appellant filed Patent Application No. 4278\/DELNP\/2015 titled \u201cHigh Performance Ziegler-Natta Catalyst Systems, Process for Producing Such MgCl\u2082-Based Catalysts and Use Thereof.\u201d The claimed invention sought to provide a Ziegler-Natta catalyst using diether compounds as internal electron donors in order to produce phthalate-free polypropylene polymers with better polymerization activity and reduced environmental risks.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Patent Office issued the First Examination Report (FER) in February 2019, citing prior art documents D1 (EP 1840138 A1), D2 (EP 1609805 A1), and D3 (WO 2009152268 A1), challenging novelty and inventive step. The appellant responded with amended claims and arguments, and a hearing was held. Despite submissions, the Assistant Controller rejected the application on January 30, 2023, for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja). The appellant then filed the present appeal before the High Court of Delhi.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Issue\"><\/span>Legal Issue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The legal issue before the Court was whether the claimed invention in the patent application demonstrated an \u201cinventive step\u201d as defined under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, and was thus patentable?<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<h4><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appellants_Reliance\"><\/span>Appellant&#8217;s Reliance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Wisig Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. Controller General of Patents<\/strong>, 2020 SCC OnLine IPAB 198 \u2013 argued for a reasoned order under principles of natural justice.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan<\/strong>, (2010) 9 SCC 496 \u2013 reinforced the need for speaking orders.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Dolby International AB v. Assistant Controller of Patents<\/strong>, 2023:DHC:1854 \u2013 emphasized that patent applications must be considered on their own merit and not merely follow foreign outcomes.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Stempeutics Research Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents<\/strong>, 2020 SCC OnLine IPAB 16 \u2013 recognized the grant of patents in foreign jurisdictions as evidence of inventive merit.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondents_Reliance\"><\/span>Respondent&#8217;s Reliance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.<\/strong>, 2015:DHC:9674-DB \u2013 emphasized that a skilled person must find a teaching or suggestion in prior art to combine elements.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v. BDR Pharmaceuticals<\/strong>, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1700 \u2013 reasserted the \u201cobvious to try\u201d test and the need for technical advancement.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents<\/strong>, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 940 \u2013 held that refusal of patent must consider the three-part test: prior art, invention, and obviousness to a skilled person.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Novozymes v. Assistant Controller of Patents<\/strong>, 2024:MHC:1344 \u2013 differentiated inventions solving distinct technical problems from prior art.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The court applied the tests of \u201cCould-Would Approach\u201d, \u201cObvious to Try\u201d, and \u201cProblem-Solution\u201d to assess whether the appellant\u2019s invention was a non-obvious technical advance over the cited prior art.<\/p>\n<p>The Court observed that all three cited documents D1, D2, and D3 described processes and compositions similar to the claimed invention. Example 13 of D1 already disclosed a catalyst with a molecular weight distribution (MWD) of 7\u2014well within the claimed range of 5.75 to 9. D2 similarly described MWD values of 7 and 7.1 using diether compounds. D3 disclosed the same process steps as the appellant\u2019s claims but described electron donors in broader terms.<\/p>\n<p>The Court found that a person skilled in the art would logically be motivated to combine the teachings of D1, D2, and D3 to arrive at the claimed invention. Since one of the inventors in the application was also the inventor of D3, the Court held that he would have knowledge of prior arts and that the modification did not rise to the level of a patentable inventive step.<\/p>\n<p>The Court rejected the argument that the Controller copied from the European Patent Office\u2019s decision, finding that the order met the standards set in <em>Agriboard International<\/em> and was reasoned.<\/p>\n<p>Further, the Court noted the appellant had filed two nearly identical patent applications on the same day\u20144277\/DELNP\/2015 (granted) and 4278\/DELNP\/2015 (the subject case)\u2014and failed to demonstrate any substantial distinction between the two. This raised the concern of evergreening, where a patentee attempts to secure extended monopoly by filing overlapping applications.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Controller\u2019s decision rejecting the patent. It held that the claimed invention lacked an inventive step as per Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, being obvious to a person skilled in the art in view of the combined disclosures of prior art documents D1, D2, and D3.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The judgment reaffirms that a <strong>patent application must clearly demonstrate a non-obvious technical advance over existing prior art<\/strong> to qualify for protection. The burden is on the applicant to show inventive step, particularly when prior art documents already describe similar processes or products.<\/p>\n<p>The Court clarified that mere modification or optimization of known parameters without surprising technical effect is not patentable. This case also endorses the application of the \u201cCould-Would\u201d approach in assessing inventive step and discourages attempts at evergreening through serial applications with negligible variation.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> Lummus Novolen Technology GmbH Vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs<\/li>\n<li><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> May 29, 2025<\/li>\n<li><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 12\/2023<\/li>\n<li><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:DHC:4614<\/li>\n<li><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> High Court of Delhi<\/li>\n<li><strong>Name of Judge:<\/strong> Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Disclaimer:<\/b><br \/>\nThe information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and Trademark Attorney<br \/>\nEmail: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lummus Novolen Technology GmbH v\/s Assistant Controller of Patents Case Summary This case revolves around the refusal by the Controller of Patents to grant a patent to Lummus Novolen Technology GmbH for a claimed invention involving an improved Ziegler-Natta catalyst system. The appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenged the rejection on<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[110],"class_list":{"0":"post-5222","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-patent-law"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5222","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5222"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5222\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}