Synopsis

JFE Steel Corporation filed a patent application for an electrical steel sheet and its manufacturing process. The Controller of Patents issued a hearing notice raising objections under multiple provisions: lack of clarity and conciseness (Section 10(4)), lack of novelty (Section 2(1)(j)), lack of inventive step (Section 2(1)(ja)), and non‑patentability under Section 3(d). However, the final order of refusal was based solely on Sections 10(4)(a) and 10(4)(c) – i.e., that the specification did not sufficiently and clearly describe the invention. The Controller explicitly stated that “a decision on novelty / inventive step is not required to be taken or can’t be taken.” The Delhi High Court set aside the order, holding that the Controller must ordinarily decide all objections raised in the hearing notice, not merely one technical ground. The court noted that patents have a limited term (20 years), and remanding repeatedly on different grounds would consume the patent’s life. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with a direction to decide all objections.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 12th May, 2026

Citation: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 483/2022 (2026:DHC:4174)

Core Law: Patents Act, 1970 – Sections 10(4)(a), 10(4)(c), 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja), 3(d), 15, 117A(2); Patent examination procedure

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi

C.a.(comm.ipd-pat) 483/2022

Jfe steel corporation (appellant) vs. Assistant controller of patents and designs (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice tushar rao gedela

Date of judgment: 12th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

Patents act, 1970 – section 10(4)(a) (complete specification shall fully and particularly describe the invention and its operation), section 10(4)(c) (specification shall disclose the best method of performing the invention known to the applicant), section 2(1)(j) (“invention” means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application), section 2(1)(ja) (“inventive step” means feature that involves technical advance or economic significance or makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art), section 3(d) (mere discovery of new form of known substance not patentable), section 15 (power of controller to refuse or require amendment), section 117a(2) (appeal to high court against decision of controller)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether the Controller of Patents, while refusing a patent application, must decide all objections raised in the hearing notice (including those relating to novelty, inventive step, and Section 3(d)) even if the application is found to fail on a preliminary or technical ground under Section 10(4). Also, whether the appellate court can remedy the omission by examining those undecided objections itself.

Key legal principles applied:

Controller should decide all objections, not just one:&nb

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.