Patent Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Its Features Are Known, If Combination Is Novel: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has observed that a patent cannot be denied merely because some of its features are already publicly known, if the particular combination of those features is novel and capable of industrial application.

“Though they may be a combination of some features already existing in the field and known publicly, when the particular combination that has been invented is certainly novel and capable of industrial application, I do not see why the 1st respondent should be declined the grant of patent,” Justice P.B. Balaji observed while dismissing a petition filed by Bull Agro Implements seeking revocation of a patent granted for a baler machine.

The patent (No. 458805) was granted to Ashlyn Antony on October 12, 2023. Following the grant, Antony issued a cease-and-desist notice to Bull Agro Implements on January 22, 2024, alleging patent infringement. Bull Agro subsequently approached the High Court seeking revocation of the patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.

Bull Agro contended that the mechanism for tying bales had been commonly used in the industry for several years. It relied on 12 prior arts to argue that the patented invention lacked novelty and inventive steps. It also alleged insufficient disclosure in the patent specifications and argued that the patent holder had not commercialised the invention.

Opposing the petition, Antony submitted that the invention involved an integrated combination of a chain drive on a link plate, a side backstop clutch that holds the twine at one end for the next cycle, and a blade mounted beneath the clutch. The blade cuts the twine at a set bale density and stops its movement.

The court examined the 12 prior arts relied upon by Bull Agro and found that none disclosed the particular combination of features claimed in the patent. It also considered whether the prior arts contained any teaching that would lead a person skilled in the field to arrive at the claimed combination.

The court further rejected the allegation of insufficient disclosure, noting that the petitioners themselves had understood the structure and operation of the patented invention. It pointed out that claims 1 to 7 disclosed every feature, along with its numbered element and operation.

On the allegation that Antony had not commercialised the invention, the court held that non-working or non-marketing of a patent was not a ground for revocation under Section 64 of the Patents Act.

It further noted that the time available for filing the statement of working had not expired and that it was premature to allege a default in this regard.

The court accordingly dismissed the revocation petition.