Case Title:ITC Limited Vs. The Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademark:Court:High Court at Calcutta:Case No.:IPDPTA/13/2024:Date of Order:20 May 2025:Judge:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
Facts:
ITC Limited filed an appeal against the rejection of its patent application titled “A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol”. The Controller of Patents rejected the application under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, stating that the invention was prejudicial to human life, health, public order, and morality. The invention involved a heater for aerosol-generating articles, potentially used with or without tobacco.
Legal Issue:
Whether the invention is hit by Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, i.e., whether its primary or intended use or commercial exploitation is contrary to public order or morality or causes serious prejudice to human or environmental health.
Reasoning:
The Court held that the Controller had fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the invention and failed to provide any cogent reasons or scientific evidence to justify the rejection. The invention was not inherently linked to tobacco use and could be applied in other contexts. Moreover, the Controller relied on documents not supplied to the applicant, violating principles of natural justice. The invocation of Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 83 of the Patents Act was held to be irrelevant. The Court emphasized that patent rights are exclusionary and do not confer a right to use or sell an invention, and that moral or public health concerns require evidence-based reasoning.
Final Decision:
The impugned order rejecting the patent was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Controller for fresh consideration, with a direction to give the appellant a proper hearing and adjudicate the matter within three months.
Issues Discussed: Interpretation and scope of Section 3(b) of the Patents Act. Principles of natural justice.Nature of patent rights as exclusionary.Improper reliance on extraneous documents and constitutional provisions.Misapplication of public order and morality clause without evidence.
