Trident Limited Vs. Controller of Patents

Trident Limited appealed against the Controller's order dated 05.01.2021 refusing patent application No. 1867/DEL/2010 titled “Air Rich Yarn and Fabric and its Method of Manufacturing” on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja). The Controller relied on prior arts D1 to D5, held the claims obvious by combining teachings particularly of D1 and D3, and found no technical advancement or unexpected effect demonstrated. The Delhi High Court found the Controller's analysis of inventive step deficient for failing to identify the skilled person's knowledge, not explaining why the combination was obvious, ignoring appellant's evidence of commercial success and technical advantages like superior air retention and softness, and introducing new objections post-hearing without opportunity to respond, set aside the refusal order and remanded the application for fresh consideration within three months.

• The Controller must provide reasoned analysis for lack of inventive step, including identifying the person skilled in the art, the obviousness of combining prior arts, and addressing evidence of technical advance or secondary indicia like commercial success; mere conclusory statements are insufficient (Paras on inventive step assessment).
• New prior arts or grounds of objection cannot be introduced in the final refusal order without prior notice in FER or hearing notice, violating natural justice (Paras on procedural fairness).
• Evidence of commercial success, long-felt need, and comparative data showing unexpected technical effects must be considered in assessing inventive step and cannot be disregarded without reasons (Paras on secondary considerations).

Case Title: Trident Limited Vs. Controller of Patents Order Date: August 11, 2025 Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022 Neutral Citation: Not available in document Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation] [Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]