Stromag Gmbh Vs. The Controller General Of Patents

Stromag Gmbh Vs. The Controller General Of Patents

Stromag Gmbh vs. The Controller General Of Patents,  September 4, 2025  IPDPTA/12/2025  High Court at Calcutta, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

Stromag Gmbh, the appellant, filed an application for a patent titled"HYDRAULICALLY ACTUATABLE DISK BRAKE AND AZIMUTH DRIVE" on February 18, 2013. The Controller of Patents, the respondent, issued a First Examination Report (FER) raising objections to the patent application. The objections were that the invention lacked aninventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970; lacked patentability under Section 3(f) of the Act; and lacked sufficiency of disclosure under Section 10 of the Act.

The primary dispute arose because the Controller rejected the patent application, stating that the invention was not "inventive" because it was merely a combination of seven previously known technologies, or "prior arts". The appellant argued that the order rejecting their patent was passed in violation of theprinciples of natural justice. They pointed out that the Controller's order simply reproduced summaries of the seven prior arts but did not provide any specific analysis of how combining these prior arts would make the appellant's invention obvious. The appellant's argument was that the order had no valid reasons and was just a "rubber-stamp reason".The court noted that a judicial or quasi-judicial order must have reasons to support it. This is a fundamental part of natural justice. The court cited several Supreme Court cases, includingKranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, which emphasized that orders "must speak" for themselves and not be vague or inscrutable. The court also highlighted the principle fromGurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab [(1979) 2 SCC 368] that "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions".

The High Court of Calcutta found the impugned order (the order from the Controller) to be sustainable because it did not provide an analysis of how the prior arts made the invention obvious. It ruled that merely stating that the invention is a combination of prior arts is not a sufficient reason for rejection. The court set aside the Controller's order and sent the matter back to a different Hearing Officer to review the patent application from the beginning, within a period of four months. The court made it clear that it was not deciding on the merits of the patent itself, and all questions regarding the patent were left open for the new Hearing Officer to decide.

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi