In one of the earliest and landmark decision of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court of India held that the right to be heard is an essential element of the principles of natural justice. The Court also emphasized therein that any decision affecting the rights of individuals must be reasoned and not arbitrary.
Fast forward to March 14, 2023, the Delhi High Court in a crucial judgement emphasized the importance of reasoned orders by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in the case of Dolby International v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Delhi High Court asserted the importance of reasoned orders by the Indian Patent Office in the above case. The Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of a patent application, noting deficiencies in the impugned order. The rejection was based on objections (including under Section 3(k) and Section 2(1)(j) of Patents Act, 1970) that were not mentioned in the hearing notice and were never considered. The Court stressed that granting or rejecting a patent is a serious matter, and decisions should be based on due application of mind and clear reasoning, rather than being mechanically passed. Delays in granting patents can discourage inventors, and the Court set aside the order and remanded the case for reconsideration by a different officer within two months to ensure a fair assessment.
In another recent decision, i.e. Synthase Gmbh vs Controller of Patents, Designs & Trademarks (May 2023), the Delhi High Court appears concerned with an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding a patent application for a “Bone Fixation Apparatus.” The court finds the order to be lacking in coherence, proper justification, and application of mind.
The court also notes that the order contains cut and pasted paragraphs without considering the appellant’s replies.
In fact, Justice C. Hari Shankar advised the IPO to ensure that such orders are not passed in the future. The Court also remands the case for a fresh consideration by a different officer and advises the Controller General of Patents to provide training on passing judicial orders to the officer who passed the impugned order.
Overall, it’s apparent that the Indian Courts are determined to ensure that core principal of justice and equity are followed and issuance of reasoned decision by quasi-judicial authority during prosecution, examination and hearings of patent matters goes a long way in that direction. Given the progresses made, its safe to say that the IPO would want it no other way either.
That said, IPO has in general done a good job in the last decade or so in ensuring more transparency and accountability in the system.
Link : https://www.linkedin.com/company/kumar-sardana-associates-ksa
