ITC Limited Vs. The Controller of Patents

Case Title: ITC Limited Vs. The Controller of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks:Case No.: IPDPTA/13/2024 :Date of Order: 20 May 2025:Name of Court: High Court at Calcutta:Name of Judge: Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

Fact of the Case:

ITC Limited filed an application for a patent titled “A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol,” designed for handheld aerosol-generating devices. The Patent Office (Controller) rejected ITC’s patent application under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, on grounds that the invention allegedly caused serious prejudice to human life, health, public order, and morality. ITC challenged this rejection before the Calcutta High Court, asserting that the Controller's decision was legally flawed, lacked proper reasoning, and was based on extraneous and unshared documents.

Legal Issue

The core legal issues were:Whether the Controller's rejection of the patent application under Section 3(b) was justified, especially regarding the grounds of public health and morality? Whether the Controller adhered to principles of natural justice by providing proper reasons and opportunity to respond to new evidence.Whether the interpretation of Section 3(b), as well as reliance on constitutional provisions and ethical considerations, was appropriate under Indian patent law.

Reasoning

The Court observed that:

• The Controller’s order lacked detailed reasoning and appeared to rely heavily on subjective notions about public morality and health without citing scientific or technical evidence.
• The Controller relied on documents surfaced for the first time in the order; no prior opportunity was given to ITC to address these.
• The order interpreted Section 3(b) too broadly, conflating moral and ethical concerns with patentability criteria.
• The Court emphasized that the law does not permit the Controller to base rejection solely on perceived societal harm without scientific backing or specific legislative guidance.
• The Court also noted that invoking constitutional Articles (such as Article 47) and framing the matter as a moral issue was misplaced, as patent law is a statutory regime that should be interpreted within legal bounds, not on moral judgments.
• The Court remanded the matter for re-evaluation, emphasizing the need for proper explanation, adherence to natural justice, and law-based reasoning.  

Decision

The Court quashed the Controller's order, set aside the rejection, and remanded the case for a fresh hearing, as the original order lacked transparent reasoning and procedural fairness. The Court clarified that the interpretation of Section 3(b) should not be used arbitrarily to deny patents based on subjective moral or health concerns without scientific rationale.