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: August 11, 2025:C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022:2025:DHC:10343: 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]

Trident Limited Vs. Controller of Patents

Trident Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the Controller's order dated 05.01.2021 refusing patent application No. 1867/DEL/2010 filed on 24.09.2010 for air rich yarn and fabric with homogenously distributed pores across radial cross-section and its manufacturing method, after FER on 21.06.2018, reply on 20.12.2018, hearings on 10.07.2020 and 05.10.2020 with submissions, on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) based on prior arts D1-D4. The Delhi High Court held that prior arts neither disclose nor suggest homogenous radial pore distribution, that Controller's presumption of identical processes yielding identical products ignored differing soluble fibre weights and was hindsight-driven, that homogeneity is not routine per literature teaching away, and that the order was contradictory, failed to cite specific prior art teachings or address specification examples; setting aside the order on 24.11.2025, the court remanded the matter to another Controller for fresh consideration within six months, including auxiliary claims.

- For determining inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, mere presence of invention elements in prior arts does not ipso facto establish obviousness; there must be a coherent thread leading from prior arts to the invention without hindsight (Enercon (India) Limited v. Aloys Wobben, ORA/6/2009/PT/CH, Para 66).

- Where a combination of prior arts after hindsight analysis fails to achieve the claimed result, it constitutes teaching away from the invention (Pharmacyclics, LLC v. Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, OA/2/2013/PT/MUM, Para 67).

- Patent refusal orders must specifically cite prior art portions disclosing claimed features and address applicant's examples and submissions; contradictory findings vitiate the order (Para 78-79).

Case Title: Trident Limited Vs. Controller of Patents  

Order Date: 24 November 2025  

Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022  

Neutral Citation: Not yet assigned  

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi  

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]

Trident Limited Vs. Controller of Patents

Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of case

In Trident Limited v. Controller of Patents (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022), the Delhi High Court set aside the Patent Office's refusal of Indian Patent Application No. 1867/DEL/2010 for "Air Rich Yarn and Fabric and its Method of Manufacturing" under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, remanding it for fresh consideration due to flawed inventive step analysis under Section 2(1)(ja). The invention creates yarns with pores homogeneously distributed across the radial cross-section by blending base fibres (like cotton) with 8-25% water-soluble PVA fibres, spinning, weaving/knitting, and dissolving PVA to form highly absorbent, quick-drying terry fabrics. The court found the Controller's reliance on prior arts D1-D4 (EP2172583B1, WO2009/098583A1, JPH05117966A, JPS60119247) deficient, lacking explanation of how they motivate the specific ratio and homogeneous pore outcome, ignoring specification examples and publications showing non-homogeneity as industry norm.Trident-Limited-Vs-Controller-of-Patents.pdf​

Factual Background

Trident Limited, a Punjab-based manufacturer of yarn, linen, paper, and power, filed the Subject Application on 24.09.2010, claiming priority from its US/EPO counterparts (US 10,196,763B2; EP2434035). The invention addresses limitations in prior PVA-blended "low twist" yarns by achieving uniform radial pores via precise blending (8-25% PVA by yarn weight, homogeneous across slivers), countering PVA's natural outward migration. Fabrics absorb 75-100% water and dry 10-30% faster. Patent Office issued First Examination Report (FER) on 21.06.2018 citing lack of inventive step over D1-D4; Trident replied on 20.12.2018 with amended claims (Claim 1: woven/knitted fabric from yarn with homogeneously distributed through-pores formed post-PVA dissolution). Hearings on 10.07.2020 and 05.10.2020 led to Impugned Order (05.01.2021) refusing grant, deeming process routine (draw frame blending yields homogeneity) without special measures, equating outcomes despite differing ratios.Trident-Limited-Vs-Controller-of-Patents.pdf​

Procedural Detail

Trident appealed the Impugned Order under Section 117A Patents Act. Arguments heard; judgment reserved 11.08.2025, delivered 24.11.2025 by Justice Tejas Karia. Appellant urged remand for hindsight bias (Controller assumed identical processes yield identical products sans evidence), no prior art disclosing 8-25% PVA for radial homogeneity (D1: 30-80% for ramie; D2: <80%, prefers 30-60%; D3/D4: varied non-overlapping), publications proving fibre migration causes unevenness. Respondent defended: Indian PSITA test differs from US/EPO (citing F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4709; KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 2007 SCC OnLine US SC 33); no data validates homogeneity; claims unsupported by spec (focuses fibre blend, not pores).Trident-Limited-Vs-Controller-of-Patents.pdf​

Core Dispute

Whether the Controller correctly refused patent under Section 2(1)(ja) for obviousness: Appellant claimed inventive step in homogeneous radial pores (not just fibres) via specific 8-25% PVA blending, special parameters (e.g., 6:1 cotton:PVA in finisher, machine settings in Tables 6-11), yielding superior absorbency/drying vs. prior "low twist" yarns with centralised pores. Prior arts lack this feature/ratio/motivation; industry expects unevenness (fine PVA migrates coreward). Controller erred conflating fibre homogeneity (routine) with pore outcome, ignoring examples, applying hindsight without "coherent thread" from D1-D4 to selection.Trident-Limited-Vs-Controller-of-Patents.pdf​

Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed for Reasoning

The court clarified patents protect inventions involving inventive step per Section 2(1)(ja): not obvious to PSITA from prior knowledge. Claim 1 recites fabric from yarn with homogeneously distributed through-pores across radial cross-section, formed by blending slivers (8-25% water-soluble by yarn weight, homogeneous radially), spinning roving, weaving/knitting, water-treating to dissolve PVA. Specification (paras on blending: "one or more draw frame passages for achieving blending homogeneity in radial direction... water soluble fibres uniformly distributed") and examples (Table 6: J34 cotton/PVA, finisher 6 cotton:1 PVA center, speeds/drafts/gauges) detail parameters countering PVA migration. Court rejected Controller's para 24 view ("no special measures apart from multiple passages; routine draw frame yields homogeneity") as ignoring examples; para 19 admits "uniform pores due to homogeneous PVA... desired result" yet concludes obviousness contradictorily.

Prior arts dissected: D1 (ramie/PVA blend, pre-draw/draw/roving/spinning, 30-80% PVA preferably 40-70%, uniform yarn post-dissolution) lacks 8-25%; D2 (humidify/mix slivers, recomb, spin/weave/dissolve, <80% PVA prefers 30-60%, even mix) no radial pores; D3 (e.g., 30% vinylon pineapple, 50:50-90:10) no steps; D4 (2-80% PVA) no homogeneity. No overlapping range motivates 8-25%; D2's ">20%" for high%, not low. Controller silent on selection rationale. Publications ("Technology of Short Staple Spinning: Blow Room to Ring Frame Basics", 12.04.2011, reproducing Reiter Manual 2008) evidence: blending yields unevenness (fines coreward, coarses peripheral; drafting de-blends), teaching away from homogeneity.

US/EPO grants persuasive but not binding (F. Hoffmann-La Roche supra: Indian PSITA adjusts parameters routinely; higher bar post-1970). Hindsight impermissible: Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Aloys Wobben, 2013 SCC OnLine IPAB 91 ("mere elements in prior art insufficient; needs coherent thread... not hindsight"); Pharmacyclics LLC v. Controller General, 2020 SCC OnLine IPAB 37 (combination failing claimed result = teaching away); Avery Dennison Corpn. v. Controller, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3659. Impugned Order infirm: misreads spec (pores, not just fibres), ignores examples/data, assumes identical processes = identical products sans evidence, no para-specific mapping D1-D4 to claims. Remand needed for fresh hearing, auxiliary EPO claims, another Controller, within 6 months.Trident-Limited-Vs-Controller-of-Patents.pdf​

Decision

Impugned Order set aside; remanded to Controller for fresh decision under Section 2(1)(ja)/15, affording hearing, considering auxiliary claims/examples/publications, uninfluenced by court observations. Copy to CGPDTM; appeal disposed.Trident-Limited-Vs-Controller-of-Patents.pdf​

Concluding Note

This judgment stresses rigorous, evidence-based inventive step scrutiny: Controllers must map prior arts paragraph-wise to claims, address spec examples/data, avoid hindsight/unsupported assumptions of routine optimisation. Reinforces PSITA considers "teaching away" (e.g., fibre migration), coherent motivation for selections (e.g., 8-25% PVA), distinguishing fibre blend from pore outcome – bolstering textile innovations amid India’s spinning sector growth.Trident-Limited-Vs-Controller-of-Patents.pdf​

Case Title: Trident Limited Vs. Controller of Patents
Order date: 24 November 2025
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:[Not specified in order]
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas KariaTrident-Limited-Vs-Controller-of-Patents.pdf​

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suggested 5 Suitable Titles for this legal analytical article:

1. Pores of Invention: Delhi High Court Remands Trident's Air-Rich Yarn Patent for Inventive Step Recalibration

2. Beyond Routine Blends: Scrutinising Homogeneous Pores under Section 2(1)(ja) in Trident v. Controller

3. Teaching Away from Obviousness: Hindsight Bias and Textile Innovation in C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022

4. Radial Homogeneity Unravelled: Setting Aside Patent Refusal for Evidentiary Gaps in PVA Yarn Claims

5. Coherent Threads Missing: Enercon Principles Guide Remand in Trident's Porous Fabric Appeal

======

Delhi High Court Remands Trident Limited's Air-Rich Yarn Patent Refusal for Fresh Inventive Step Review

New Delhi, November 24, 2025: In Trident Limited v. Controller of Patents (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022), the High Court of Delhi, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia, set aside the Patent Office's order dated 05.01.2021 refusing Indian Patent Application No. 1867/DEL/2010 under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, and remanded it for re-consideration on inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja).​

Trident claimed a process for "Air Rich Yarn and Fabric" yielding terry fabrics with homogeneously distributed radial pores (via 8-25% PVA blending, spinning, weaving, dissolution), absorbing 75-100% water and drying 10-30% faster; granted in US (10,196,763B2) and EPO (EP2434035). Controller refused post-FER (21.06.2018), hearings (2020), citing obviousness over D1 (EP2172583B1: ramie/PVA 30-80%), D2 (WO2009/098583A1: <80% PVA, even mix), D3/D4 (varied ratios), deeming draw-frame blending routine for homogeneity despite differing ratios/outcomes.​

Court found flaws: no para-specific mapping of D1-D4 to claims (lacking 8-25% motivation, radial pores); ignored spec examples (Tables 6-11 parameters countering PVA migration), publications ("Technology of Short Staple Spinning", Reiter Manual) showing blending yields unevenness (fines coreward), teaching away. Hindsight bias per Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Aloys Wobben, 2013 SCC OnLine IPAB 91 ("coherent thread" needed, not mere elements); Pharmacyclics LLC v. Controller, 2020 SCC OnLine IPAB 37; Avery Dennison v. Controller, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3659. US/EPO grants persuasive but Indian PSITA test stricter (F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4709).​

Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi

======