You spend years developing an invention, only to have its patent rejected on moral or health grounds. But what if those grounds lack supporting evidence?
Another recent Calcutta High Court judgment set aside such a rejection, holding that public health and morality objections under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act must be backed by evidence rather than assumptions.
The ruling emphasizes that Indian Patent Office (IPO) must demonstrate with “scientific or technical evidence” that the specific invention’s primary intended use causes serious prejudice to human health rather than rely on “preconceived and subjective notions” about broader product categories.
The case involved a heater assembly for generating aerosol from various substrates, rejected on the assumption that it would exclusively be used with harmful tobacco compounds without examining the specific invention’s actual intended use.
Assess the Invention’s Intent: The court clarified that Section 3(b) assessment must focus on what the invention is intended to do, not assumptions about associations. The IPO must evaluate whether the specific technical mechanism causes alleged harm rather than applying blanket policy concerns. The court pointed out “preconceived notions” without supporting technical analysis.
Evidence Shapes Outcomes: Ruling emphasized that Section 3(b) rejections require proper justification with supporting facts. Conclusions drawn without “scientific or technical evidence” or “cogent reasoning” cannot sustain patent refusals. Claims of serious prejudice must be backed by concrete technical analysis.
International Perspectives: Citing TRIPS Article 27.2 and Paris Convention Article 4quater, the court noted that morality-based exclusions require proper justification. The judgment referenced EPO practice showing such exclusions demand specific technical analysis rather than general regulatory concerns.
Patent ≠ Market Approval: The court reinforced that patents grant exclusionary rights, not commercialization rights. Concerns about marketing, regulatory compliance, or public health policy should be addressed under relevant laws, not during patent examination.
Practical Implications: For Patent Applicants in regulated sectors, well-reasoned responses challenging the evidentiary basis of rejections may prove effective. The emphasis on technical analysis over regulations provides a framework for addressing policy-based objections with specific technical arguments.
This ruling builds on similar judicial thinking in a related case – https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rahuladey_itc-v-controller-patentability-under-sec-ugcPost-7326105442059792384-htOi?
