Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Nippon Signal Patent Application For Train Controller Technology

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order refusing a patent application for a train-control system developed by Japanese company The Nippon Signal Co., Ltd., after finding that the Patent Office had not adequately dealt with the company's submissions distinguishing the invention from the cited prior-art documents.

Justice Jyoti Singh, in a judgment delivered on May 29, remanded the matter to the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs for fresh consideration and directed that a decision be taken within four months after granting the company an opportunity of hearing.

"Plain reading of the impugned order fortifies the stand of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the important inventive features brought forth are not even dealt with in the impugned order and the order is completely coloured by the perception of the Respondent that D1 and D2 make the claimed invention obvious to the person skilled in the art," the court observed.

The dispute arose from Indian Patent Application No. 201617036284, filed in October 2016 on the basis of a March 2015 PCT application.

The invention, titled "Redundant Control Device and System Switching Method", relates to a train-control system in which an active system and a standby system are installed separately in the front and last cars of a train and operate in synchronisation.

According to the patent specification, when the active system detects an error, it sends error-detection information to the standby system, disables its own output control data, and switches to the standby system's output control data. If the error persists, the active system is confirmed as having failed and is stopped.

In February 2021, the Patent Office issued a First Examination Report questioning the application's novelty and inventive step, while also raising objections relating to patentability, disclosure, clarity and conciseness. Nippon Signal replied to the report, revised its claims and later filed written submissions after a hearing held in February 2024.

The application was ultimately rejected in July 2024. The Assistant Controller concluded that the claimed invention lacked an inventive step in view of two prior-art documents, referred to as D1 and D2.

Challenging the refusal, Nippon Signal argued that the Controller had overlooked detailed submissions explaining why the claimed invention differed materially from the cited prior-art documents.

The company contended that the invention involved a distinct architecture for train controllers and claimed technical and economic advantages that, according to it, were not disclosed in D1 and D2. It also argued that the cited documents did not teach or suggest the particular configuration claimed in the application.

The Patent Office defended the refusal, contending that duplexing technology used to improve system reliability was already known in control systems and electronics. It argued that adapting such technology for train-control applications would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art and amounted to a routine design choice.

After examining the record, the High Court noted that the applicant had highlighted several distinctions between the claimed invention and the cited prior-art documents. These included the placement of active and standby controllers in separate train cars, the synchronisation mechanism used by the system, the switchover process, and the advantages claimed to arise from that configuration.

The Court found that those distinctions were not meaningfully addressed in the refusal order. Referring to the Controller's treatment of the applicant's submissions, it noted that the order proceeded to conclude that the invention lacked an inventive step without analysing the differences identified by the applicant.

The Court further observed that the Controller is required to consider all relevant points raised by an applicant, analyse them and then pass a reasoned order based on the material placed on record.

Holding that the failure to consider the detailed written submissions warranted interference, the Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Accordingly, the Assistant Controller has been directed to reconsider the application afresh, taking into account the company's response to the First Examination Report, its post-hearing written submissions, and the grounds raised in the appeal.

"It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case," the Court clarified.

The appeal was partially allowed.