ITC LIMITED Vs. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADEMARK

IPDPTA/13/2024

(BEFORE: The Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur)

In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court held that a patent application cannot be refused on grounds of public morality, health, or public order unless such refusal is based on clear scientific or technical evidence. The decision came in response to a petition filed by ITC Limited, challenging the rejection of its patent application by the Controller of Patents.

ITC had sought a patent for its invention titled “A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol,” a device linked to aerosol-generating products such as electronic cigarettes. The Controller rejected the application under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. This section bars patents for inventions deemed harmful to public order, morality, or human, animal, or plant life or health. The Controller argued that since the invention promoted the use of electronic cigarettes, which are detrimental to health, the application should be denied.

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, delivering the judgment, criticized the Patent Office’s decision as unreasoned and lacking scientific foundation. He emphasized that subjective opinions on morality or public health concerns are not sufficient grounds for patent denial under Section 3(b). Instead, such concerns must be supported by cogent scientific data or technical reasoning. The Court remarked that interpreting patent laws based on broad moral judgments without evidence can lead to arbitrary decisions.

The judgment also clarified that Section 3(b) evaluates the intent and character of the invention, not merely its societal impact. Blanket assumptions about the harmful nature of products like tobacco or aerosol devices cannot justify patent rejection without evidence. The Court found that the Patent Controller had offered a “cryptic and unreasoned” view without independent scientific assessment, which was legally unsustainable.

Furthermore, the Court addressed a misinterpretation of Section 83(e) of the Patents Act by the Controller. The Controller had suggested that granting a patent implied approval to commercialize the invention. Justice Kapur clarified that a patent grants an exclusionary right — the right to prevent others from making, using, or selling the invention — and does not confer a positive right to manufacture or sell the product.

The Court also rejected the argument that constitutional principles such as Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Directive Principles of State Policy could be grounds for denying a patent. While these principles inform legislative intent, they do not directly apply to technical decisions like patent grants unless codified in the statute. Ultimately, the Calcutta High Court quashed the Patent Office’s rejection order and directed the Controller to reconsider ITC’s application strictly in accordance with the law, supported by credible scientific or technical evidence.

This ruling sets an important precedent, reinforcing that decisions in patent law must be evidence-based and not driven by subjective or moralistic interpretations.