Bombay High Court Quashes Patent Refusal To Medipack, Says Reasons Are 'Heart And Soul' Of Orders

The Bombay High Court on 23 March set aside the Patent Office's refusal to grant a patent for a single-use safety syringe to Medipack Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd., holding that the order was unreasoned and violated the principles of natural justice.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Controller. It remarked:

“Section 117A of the Patents Act specifically provides for an appeal against any order passed by the Registrar under Section 15. It is well settled that reasons form the heart and soul of an order, more so when such orders are appealable. It was therefore incumbent upon the Controller to have given independent reasons to support the rejection of the Petitioner's Patent Application, which, as already noted above, the Controller has failed to do.”

The company had sought to quash the refusal order, contending that it was an unreasoned “non-speaking” decision that violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the patent on novelty grounds that were not mentioned in the official hearing notice.

It argued that the Controller's failure to provide a structured analysis or independent reasoning deprived it of a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate the merits of its invention and warranted a remand for fresh consideration by a different officer.

Evaluating the legality of the refusal, the Court noted that the Controller had completely ignored the mandatory procedure laid down in the Patent Office Manual of Practice and Procedure.

The Court further observed that by rejecting the application on the ground of novelty—an objection not raised in the hearing notice—the Controller had travelled beyond the notice and acted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Judge also noted that the Controller had used generic expressions such as “not persuasive”, which the Delhi High Court had previously criticised as part of an “endemic problem” of non-speaking orders in the Patent Office. The Bench stated:

“Sadly, the Delhi High Court's lament seems to have fallen on deaf ears since the problem very much persists to date, as is evident from a perusal of the impugned order. The Controller has also clearly turned a blind eye to the following directions issued by the Delhi High Court to be followed when deciding a patent application viz.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the Patent Officer's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration before a different Controller.