In Kannan Gopalakrishnan v Controller of Patents and Anr, a rejected applicant sought a high court order to overturn the dismissal of his claim by the respondent, the Controller of Patents, under section 3(a) of the Patents Act, 1970 (act). In his petition, the applicant applied for leave to demonstrate the working of the refused patent application. The respondent Controller countered that the claimed invention appeared to be frivolous or asserted matters that were obviously contrary to well-established natural laws. Therefore, it did not meet the requirements under section 3(a) for the grant of a patent.
In the application for his Solar Supplemental Power Source invention, the petitioner claimed originality for a prime mover, in particular an electromechanical device designed to generate electricity, that can operate even when solar energy is unavailable. The petitioner contended that, because of buoyant and gravitational forces, the unbalanced arm loads of the device cause an imbalance in the wheel structure to which the arms are attached. The structure then rotates along a guide track, such movement being able to generate electricity.
Court orders patent prototype demonstration
In his petition, the inventor alleged that the respondent Controller rejected his review application by an order in June 2025, without having fixed a hearing date and given the petitioner an opportunity to present his case. The petitioner submitted that the review was to demonstrate the working of a prototype. This would prove the claim in the patent application.
The petitioner applied under sections 77(1)(f) and 77(1)(g) of the act, read with rules 130(1) and 130(2) of the Patents Rules for a direction to the Controller to grant him a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate the working of the claimed invention.
The respondent Controller submitted that the petitioner was given several opportunities to demonstrate the working of the invention before the decision to refuse the patent application was reached. Even during the review proceedings, such an opportunity was repeatedly given to the petitioner. The respondent Controller argued that, despite being given repeated opportunities, the petitioner could not make any grounds for a review. There were no grounds to interfere with the order made in the review application.
Final chance to demonstrate invention
The court found no reason to interfere with the respondent Controller’s order dismissing the review petition. Strictly applying the principles set out in order 47 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for dealing with review applications, the court agreed with the respondent Controller, finding that there was no error on the face of his first order. The court took the same view of the June 2025 review order.
The court then considered the petitioner’s application to be allowed an opportunity to demonstrate his invention. It took in account the fact that the petitioner asserted that a working prototype was available and could be demonstrated. The petitioner contended that a demonstration would prove the validity of his claim in another hearing before the second respondent. The court, despite its view on the law, found it equitable to grant one final opportunity to the petitioner. It took into consideration the fact that the petitioner had applied his mind in inventing a product and a sufficient opportunity should be given for him to demonstrate that invention before the competent authority. The court founded its decision on principles of equity and exercised its discretion under article 226 of the constitution. It thereby ensured that an invention did not go to waste and that all possible opportunities were given to sustain it.
Court grants prototype demonstration deadline
The court directed the petitioner to have the prototype available for demonstration before the respondent Controller within four weeks. It further directed the respondent Controller to permit the petitioner to demonstrate the prototype’s workings and to come to a reasoned decision within four months.
The court took a flexible view of the dispute by relying on the principles of equity. It exercised its discretion under the constitution, granting the petitioner a limited opportunity to demonstrate his invention’s workings. This shows the value of working demonstrations of inventions to defeat the rejection of applications on the basis that they are frivolous or contrary to well-established natural laws.
Author: DPS Parmar
First Published by: IBLJ here