Showing posts with label Indigenous Energy Storage Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Controller of Patent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indigenous Energy Storage Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Controller of Patent. Show all posts

Saturday, April 18, 2026

Indigenous Energy Storage Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Controller of Patent

Factual and Procedural Background Indigenous Energy Storage Technologies developed a process to turn cattle manure into hard carbon for use in sodium-ion batteries and supercapacitors. The company filed a patent application in November 2020, and the patent was granted in August 2021. Shortly after grant, a post-grant opposition was filed by a third party. In October 2024 the Deputy Controller of Patents revoked the patent on two grounds: lack of inventive step over existing knowledge and insufficient disclosure in the specification. The company filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court and also sought to place additional expert opinion and yield data on record.

Dispute in Question The core issue was whether the Controller was right to cancel the patent. The company argued that its process was new and non-obvious, offered clear technical and environmental advantages, and was fully described in the patent. The Controller and opponent maintained that the invention was obvious in light of earlier documents and that the specification did not adequately explain how the claimed results were achieved.

Reasoning and Decision of Court Justice Jyoti Singh examined the Controller’s order and found it flawed. The court noted that the required five-step test for checking inventive step had not been followed properly — the skilled person was not identified, the inventive concept was not clearly set out, and differences from prior art were not examined without hindsight. On the issue of insufficient disclosure, the court observed that the company had not been given a proper opportunity to submit supporting data. Additional evidence filed before the High Court was allowed because it was relevant to a fair decision. Rather than deciding the validity itself, the court set aside the revocation order and sent the post-grant opposition back to the Controller for fresh consideration. The Controller must now re-hear both sides, take the additional material on record, and pass a reasoned order within four months. The High Court expressed no view on the ultimate merits of the patent.

Title: Indigenous Energy Storage Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Controller of Patent and Designs & Anr., Order date: 12th March 2026, Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025, Neutral Citation: Not specified in the order, Name of court and Judge: Delhi High Court, Justice Jyoti Singh

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors. Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Blog Archive

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK  REGISTRA...

My Blog List

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog