Background and Subject Patent Application
The Coca-Cola Company filed a patent application (No. 1771/DELNP/2010) for a next-generation beverage dispenser capable of offering customized beverages to consumers. This invention aimed to overcome the limitations of traditional dispensers by enabling greater variety and personalization using consumer identification through wireless technology and a graphical user interface (GUI).
Rejection by the Patent Office
The Indian Patent Office refused the application via order dated 29 January 2020, primarily under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The rejection cited a lack of inventive step as defined under Section 2(1)(ja), referencing several prior art documents (D1 through D5) which allegedly disclosed similar features.
Objections Raised and Applicant’s Response
Initial objections raised in the First Examination Report (FER) included lack of novelty and inventive step, exclusion under Section 3(k) (computer programs), and insufficient disclosure. Coca-Cola responded in detail and submitted written arguments distinguishing its invention from the cited prior art. A hearing was held, followed by written submissions. Despite this, the Controller reiterated the lack of inventive step in the final order, asserting the invention was obvious in light of prior art.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court found the Controller’s order cryptic and lacking in reasoning. The judgment criticized the Patent Office for failing to examine and discuss Coca-Cola’s detailed responses and for not applying the mandatory three-pronged analysis: (i) the invention disclosed in prior art, (ii) the invention in the current application, and (iii) why the current invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art. This failure violated the standard laid out in precedent including the Agriboard case.
Remand and Direction to Patent Office
The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter to the Patent Office for fresh consideration. It directed that a reasoned order must be passed after giving Coca-Cola an opportunity for another hearing and ensuring that all its submissions are addressed. The court reiterated the duty of the Patent Office to pass speaking and reasoned orders, especially in matters involving technical analysis under patent law.
Conclusion
The court did not grant the patent but ensured procedural fairness by requiring the Patent Office to reconsider the application properly. It reaffirmed judicial expectations for administrative authorities to offer detailed reasoning when rejecting patent applications, especially when applicants have made substantive technical submissions.
Case Details
Case Title: The Coca-Cola Company Vs. The Controller of Patents & Anr.
Date of Order: 17 April 2025
Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 342/2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2947
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
