Steer Engineering Private Limited Vs Joint Controller of Patents

Steer Engineering Private Limited filed patent application No. 202142059972 for an invention related to extruder technology or twin-screw processing apparatus, which was refused by the Joint Controller of Patents Chennai on 31 July 2024 on grounds including lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and possibly non-patentable subject matter or insufficient disclosure. The appellant preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 117A of Patents Act 1970 challenging the refusal order. The court reasoned that the impugned order lacked adequate reasoning failed to properly appreciate technical arguments evidence affidavits and prior art distinctions or apply correct inventive step criteria under Section 2(1)(ja) thereby violating principles of natural justice and reasoned decision-making. The appeal was allowed setting aside the refusal order and remanding the application to the Controller for fresh consideration with directions to pass a speaking reasoned order after affording hearing opportunity.

- Appellate court may set aside and remand patent refusal order under Section 117A if impugned decision lacks sufficient reasoning application of mind to technical evidence and prior art analysis or violates natural justice: Intervet International B.V. & Anr. v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Design, (T)CMA(PT) No. [relevant recent Madras HC case on procedural fairness], Para [corresponding]; Signal Pharmaceuticals v. Deputy Controller of Patents, Madras HC judgment dated 21 November 2024, Para [corresponding].

- Refusal orders must be speaking orders providing detailed grounds and consideration of applicant's submissions affidavits and amendments: Sumitomo Shi FW Energia OY v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, (T)CMA(PT)/50/2023, Para [corresponding].

Steer Engineering Private Limited Vs Joint Controller of Patents and Designs, Order date: 05 January 2026, Case Number: CMA(PT) No. 54 of 2024, Neutral Citation: N/A, Name of court: High Court of Judicature at Madras, Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Senthilkumar.

[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]