The case of Mr. Abhishek Sharma & Anr. vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs revolves around the rejection of a patent application by the Indian Patent Office and the subsequent appeal filed by the appellants under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellants, Mr. Abhishek Sharma and another, sought to challenge the impugned order dated November 10, 2022, which refused their patent application titled “Innovative Change To Solve Any Dispute, Unexpected Business Loss, Closures, Financial Loss, Unexpected Accidents.” The application claimed to invent a method involving the use of specific colours in clothing and accessories to influence human behaviour and environmental outcomes, purportedly based on the impact of colours on brain function and energy fields.
The appellants’ patent application, filed on November 21, 2021, was examined under Sections 12 and 13 of the Patents Act, and a First Examination Report (FER) was issued on June 10, 2022. The appellants responded to the FER on June 13, 2022, and a hearing was conducted on September 5, 2022. The Patent Office rejected the application, concluding that the claimed subject matter did not qualify as an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act. The rejection was based on several grounds: the claims were deemed abstract, lacking technical or scientific evidence, and merely speculative in nature. The Controller noted that the application described no tangible technical features or solutions to a technical problem, instead relying on vague assertions about the effects of black-coloured wearables on human psychology and surroundings.
The appellants filed the present appeal with a significant delay of 701 days, attributing the delay to their attempts to seek re-examination from the Patent Office. They submitted chat logs from the Patent Office’s Open House Helpdesk portal as evidence of their follow-up efforts. However, the court observed that these chats began only on August 21, 2024, long after the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal had expired. The court refused to condone the delay, emphasising that the appellants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the inordinate lapse of time. This procedural shortcoming alone was sufficient to dismiss the appeal, but the court also examined the merits of the case to ensure a comprehensive adjudication.
On the substantive issue, the court upheld the Patent Office’s decision, agreeing that the appellants’ claims were abstract and unsupported by scientific or technical evidence. The application described the purported effects of black-coloured wearables in resolving disputes or mitigating financial losses, but these assertions were deemed hypothetical and devoid of empirical validation. The court highlighted that patent law requires inventions to demonstrate technical advancement or a solution to a technical problem, as defined under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act. The appellants’ claims, however, were rooted in metaphysical theories rather than measurable technological innovation. The court also noted that the appellants’ reliance on a granted patent in Germany was unsubstantiated, as they failed to provide details or documentation of the foreign patent.
The judgment underscored the fundamental principles of patentability, particularly the necessity for inventions to be novel, non-obvious, and industrially applicable. The court referenced Sections 3(a) and 3(c) of the Patents Act, which exclude frivolous inventions and abstract theories from patent protection. The appellants’ claims fell squarely within these exclusions, as they proposed no concrete mechanism or technical process to achieve the stated outcomes. The court further observed that the claims were indefinite and failed to delineate the scope of the invention, violating Section 10 of the Patents Act.
In dismissing the appeal, the court affirmed the Patent Office’s meticulous analysis and its adherence to statutory requirements. The decision reinforced the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the integrity of the patent system by preventing the grant of monopolies over abstract ideas or unscientific assertions. The judgment serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards applied to patent applications, ensuring that only genuine innovations with demonstrable technical merit receive protection.
The case also highlights the procedural rigour expected in intellectual property litigation. The appellants’ failure to file the appeal within the stipulated timeframe, coupled with their inability to justify the delay, demonstrated a lack of diligence in pursuing legal remedies. The court’s refusal to condone the delay, despite the appellants’ purported follow-up efforts, reflects the strict enforcement of limitation periods in legal proceedings. This aspect of the ruling emphasises the importance of timely action in intellectual property disputes, where delays can undermine the certainty and efficacy of legal outcomes.
The judgment reiterates that patents are not granted for abstract theories or speculative claims but are reserved for inventions that contribute to technological progress. By dismissing the appeal on both procedural and substantive grounds, the court upheld the principles of legal certainty and scientific rigour that underpin the patent system. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for inventors and applicants, urging them to ground their claims in tangible, evidence-based innovation while adhering to procedural timelines in legal disputes.
