The case involving the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970, revolves around the rejection of a patent application for an "Eco-friendly lamp made up of composition based on panchagavya with the combination of leaves used in traditional herbal medicine." The court's decision to uphold the rejection brings to light the critical principle that the aggregation of known properties of traditionally known components is not patentable. This principle underscores the importance of genuine inventiveness and non-obviousness in patent law.

Argument for Patentability:
The appellant's counsel argued that the invention met the requirements of Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, which defines an invention as a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application. The counsel contended that the prior art cited by the respondents was not pertinent to the invention in question, as it related to mosquito repellents rather than lamps. This argument aimed to differentiate the claimed invention from existing knowledge and highlight its novelty.

Respondents' Counterargument and Prior Art:
The respondents argued that the invention was liable for rejection due to prior art documents D1 to D3, which contained most of the ingredients used in the appellant's invention. These documents were critical in the court's evaluation of whether the claimed invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art, a crucial criterion under Sections 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.

Document D1 (published on 10.06.2017) disclosed a composition for a herbal mosquito repellent made from cow dung, cow milk, cow ghee, neem, and peepal tree barks. Although it did not directly relate to a lamp, the commonality of ingredients with the claimed invention was significant.

Document D2, authored by Mandavgane and published on 11.04.2005, related to a herbal mosquito repellent composition containing cow dung and neem, similar to the appellant's invention. However, it did not include all the ingredients of the claimed invention.

Document D3 disclosed the production of eco-friendly lamps/diyas from cow dung, ghee, and essential oils. This document was the most relevant prior art as it directly related to the production of lamps using natural ingredients.

Court's Evaluation and Decision:
The court found that D3, when combined with the knowledge from D1 and D2, would make the claimed invention obvious to a person skilled in the art. The court reasoned that the use of traditional components and their known properties, when aggregated, did not amount to an inventive step. The court emphasized that merely discovering optimal ranges and proportions of these ingredients through routine experimentation did not constitute a patentable invention.

The court's reliance on prior art documents highlighted the importance of evaluating the obviousness of an invention in light of existing knowledge. By doing so, the court reinforced the principle that an invention must demonstrate a significant inventive step beyond what is already known to be patentable.

Legal Principles and Patentability:
Inventive Step and Non-Obviousness:
The concept of an inventive step, as outlined in Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, requires that the invention must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art. This case illustrates the rigorous scrutiny applied to assess whether an invention meets this criterion. The court's decision underscores the necessity for an invention to show a distinct advancement over prior art, rather than merely combining known elements in a predictable manner.

Traditional Knowledge and Patent Law:
Section 3(p) of the Patents Act excludes the mere aggregation or duplication of traditionally known properties of traditionally known components from being patented. This provision aims to protect traditional knowledge and prevent its monopolization through the patent system. The court's decision aligns with this objective, ensuring that traditional knowledge remains in the public domain and is not subject to unjustified patent claims.

Importance of Comprehensive Prior Art Search:
The case highlights the importance of conducting a thorough prior art search before filing a patent application. Innovators and their legal counsel must diligently search for relevant prior art to anticipate potential challenges and ensure that their invention meets the criteria for patentability. This proactive approach can prevent the rejection of patent applications and support stronger, more defensible patent claims.

Conclusion:
The case of Husenali Anwarali Charaniya vs. Hasmukhbhai Bhagvanbhai Patel underscores the critical principle that the aggregation of known properties of traditionally known components is not patentable. The court's decision to reject the patent application reaffirms the necessity for genuine inventiveness and non-obviousness in patent law. By emphasizing the importance of a clear inventive step and the protection of traditional knowledge, the court's ruling provides valuable guidance for innovators and reinforces the integrity of the patent system.

Case Citation: The Zero Brand Zone Pvt. Ltd. Vs Controller of Patent: 05.07.2024:([OA/32/2020/PT/CHN]:Madras High Court:Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, H. J.

[The information is shared in the public interest. Readers' Discretion is advised as it is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.]


Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539