{"id":5892,"date":"2025-07-05T07:53:41","date_gmt":"2025-07-05T07:53:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=5892"},"modified":"2025-07-05T07:57:30","modified_gmt":"2025-07-05T07:57:30","slug":"when-simplicity-becomes-innovation-examination-of-section-21ja-of-the-patents-act-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/when-simplicity-becomes-innovation-examination-of-section-21ja-of-the-patents-act-1970\/","title":{"rendered":"When Simplicity Becomes Innovation: Examination of Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Summary_Dong_Yang_PC_Inc_v_Controller_of_Patents_and_Designs\"><\/span>Case Summary: Dong Yang PC, Inc. v. Controller of Patents and Designs<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case concerns the appeal filed by Dong Yang PC, Inc. against the Controller of Patents and Designs under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The dispute revolves around the refusal of the appellant&#8217;s patent application for a \u201cVertical Rotary Parking System\u201d on grounds of lacking an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act. The key issue is whether the subject invention represents a true technical advancement or is merely a workshop modification of an earlier patent (D-5) by the same applicant.<\/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\/when-simplicity-becomes-innovation-examination-of-section-21ja-of-the-patents-act-1970\/#Case_Summary_Dong_Yang_PC_Inc_v_Controller_of_Patents_and_Designs\" >Case Summary: Dong Yang PC, Inc. v. Controller of Patents and Designs<\/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\/when-simplicity-becomes-innovation-examination-of-section-21ja-of-the-patents-act-1970\/#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\/when-simplicity-becomes-innovation-examination-of-section-21ja-of-the-patents-act-1970\/#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\/when-simplicity-becomes-innovation-examination-of-section-21ja-of-the-patents-act-1970\/#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\/when-simplicity-becomes-innovation-examination-of-section-21ja-of-the-patents-act-1970\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/when-simplicity-becomes-innovation-examination-of-section-21ja-of-the-patents-act-1970\/#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-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/when-simplicity-becomes-innovation-examination-of-section-21ja-of-the-patents-act-1970\/#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-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/when-simplicity-becomes-innovation-examination-of-section-21ja-of-the-patents-act-1970\/#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-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/when-simplicity-becomes-innovation-examination-of-section-21ja-of-the-patents-act-1970\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Dong Yang PC, Inc. filed an Indian Patent Application (No. 2554\/DEL\/2013) on August 29, 2013, for a \u201cVertical Rotary Parking System\u201d designed to optimize parking in narrow spaces. The application underwent examination and received its First Examination Report (FER) in August 2018, to which the appellant replied in January 2019.<\/p>\n<p>Subsequently, a pre-grant opposition was filed by Parkerbot India Pvt. Ltd., citing prior art documents D-1 to D-4. A hearing was scheduled in November 2023. Just days before the hearing, the opponent introduced an additional document\u2014D-5\u2014which was not part of the original opposition.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the opponent&#8217;s absence at the hearing, the Controller relied heavily on D-5 to reject the patent application, claiming that the subject invention lacked inventive step, was obvious to a person skilled in the art, and did not qualify as an \u201cinvention\u201d under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act.<\/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 application was rejected by the Controller of Patents and Designs on April 12, 2024, under Section 15 of the Patents Act. The grounds cited were:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Lack of inventive step<\/li>\n<li>Mere reversal of male and female coupling components<\/li>\n<li>Rejection of an amendment request filed under Form-13<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the decision before the High Court of Delhi by filing <strong>C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 60\/2024<\/strong> under Section 117A of the Patents Act. The matter came up for hearing before Hon\u2019ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Issue\"><\/span>Legal Issue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Whether the subject invention lacked an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970?<\/li>\n<li>Whether the Controller erred in rejecting the amendment of specifications under Form-13?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries<\/strong>, (1979) 2 SCC 511<br \/>\nCited by the Respondent to assert that mere workshop modifications or mechanical alterations without technical advancement do not qualify for patent protection. The Supreme Court held that if the invention is obvious and lacks novelty, it cannot be patented.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Avery Dennison Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs<\/strong>, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3659<br \/>\nRelied upon by the Appellant and discussed by the Court. This case emphasized that even simple inventions, if novel and offering technical advancement, are patentable. The Court highlighted that a significant time gap between the prior art and the current invention may suggest non-obviousness.<\/li>\n<li><strong>AGFA NV v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs<\/strong>, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3493<br \/>\nThis case discussed the requirements for establishing &#8220;common general knowledge&#8221;. It held that the Controller must cite specific sources and prove that such knowledge existed prior to the filing date.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Opentv INC v. Controller of Patents and Designs<\/strong>, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2771<br \/>\nThe Court held that amendments to patent claims can be allowed at the appellate stage as long as they fall within the scope of the original claims and comply with Section 59 of the Act.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Knoll Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.<\/strong>, 367 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir.)<br \/>\nReferenced for the principle that post-filing data may be submitted to support patent validity if consistent with the originally disclosed invention.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.<\/strong>, 655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir.)<br \/>\nReinforced the rule that post-filing evidence of unexpected results is admissible when consistent with the disclosure in the patent application.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\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 held that the Controller\u2019s decision lacked adequate reasoning on why the modification of the coupling elements was obvious or devoid of technical advancement.<\/p>\n<p>The Court noted that simplicity does not negate patentability, and that the alleged interchange of male and female coupling parts resulted in significant improvements including lower noise, better safety, and reduced friction.<\/p>\n<p>The Judge also found fault with the Controller&#8217;s rejection of the Form-13 amendment application. Since document D-5 was not cited in the FER and was introduced only later, the appellant had a right to amend the specification and explain the inventive step. Denial of this amendment was a violation of the principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n<p>Further, the Controller\u2019s reliance on \u201ccommon general knowledge\u201d was not supported by any documentation or expert testimony, which undermined the validity of the refusal.<\/p>\n<p>The Court accepted the technical evidence affidavit dated 05.07.2024 submitted by the appellant, emphasizing that post-filing evidence is admissible if consistent with the original invention and helpful in establishing its technical merits.<\/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 of Delhi set aside the impugned order dated April 12, 2024. The matter was remanded to the Controller of Patents and Designs for <em>de novo<\/em> consideration. The patent application was restored and a fresh hearing was directed to be conducted by a different officer. The Controller was instructed to pass a reasoned order within four months, uninfluenced by the previous decision.<\/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<ul>\n<li>Simple inventions are not necessarily obvious and may still qualify for patents if they provide technical advancement or economic significance.<\/li>\n<li>The inventive step must be analyzed not only with reference to prior art but also with substantiated evidence of \u201ccommon general knowledge\u201d.<\/li>\n<li>Applicants have a right to amend specifications even at the appellate stage when new prior art is introduced later in the examination process.<\/li>\n<li>Post-filing technical data can be considered to support claims of inventive step if aligned with the original specification.<\/li>\n<li>Failure to consider amendment requests and deprive an applicant of a fair hearing constitutes a violation of natural justice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\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> Dong Yang PC, Inc. v. Controller of Patents and Designs<\/li>\n<li><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 01 July 2025<\/li>\n<li><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 60\/2024<\/li>\n<li><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:DHC:5124<\/li>\n<li><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> High Court of Delhi<\/li>\n<li><strong>Name of Judge:<\/strong> Hon\u2019ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Summary: Dong Yang PC, Inc. v. Controller of Patents and Designs This case concerns the appeal filed by Dong Yang PC, Inc. against the Controller of Patents and Designs under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The dispute revolves around the refusal of the appellant&#8217;s patent application for a \u201cVertical Rotary Parking System\u201d<\/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":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-5892","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5892","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=5892"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5892\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}