Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, Calcutta High Court
Patent Cannot Be Denied On Morality Or Health Grounds Without Scientific Evidence: Calcutta High Court
|ITC Limited’s patent application for an aerosol-generating heater device was rejected by the Patent Office citing health and morality concerns.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a patent application cannot be denied on grounds of public health, morality, or public order unless such objections are supported by cogent scientific or technical evidence.
The Court was adjudicating a challenge to an order by the Patent Office which had refused to grant a patent to ITC Limited for its invention titled “A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol”—a device linked to aerosol-generating products like electronic cigarettes.
The Controller of Patents rejected the application, citing Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, which prohibits the patenting of inventions whose use or exploitation would be contrary to public order or morality or which causes serious prejudice to human, animal or plant life or health.
The Controller argued that the invention promoted the use of electronic cigarettes, which are harmful to health, and therefore could not be granted a patent.
A Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur said, “The interaction of patent laws and ethics is an uncomfortable relationship and has always produced difficulties. In such circumstance, section 3(b) ought not to be interpreted to deal with all subjective concerns of morality, public order or health regardless of any scientific or technical evidence or any cogent reasoning.”
The Court noted that Section 3(b) is based on the intent behind the invention, not merely its effects, and any assessment under this provision must be backed by substantive and credible evidence, not subjective or moralistic interpretations.
The Court emphasized that blanket assumptions about the harmful nature of tobacco or aerosol-generating products cannot be the sole ground for rejecting a patent, especially in the absence of a scientific basis. It added, “The finding that the subject invention is contrary to public order and morality is unreasoned, cryptic and without any basis. The fact that the Controller was of the view without consideration of any independent scientific or technical evidence that the usage of the invention affects public order and morality cannot be the basis for rejecting the invention.”
In addition, the Court clarified the nature of patent rights under Indian law. Refuting the Controller's reliance on Section 83(e) of the Patents Act, which was interpreted as implying a patent grants the right to commercialize the invention, the Court noted, “The grant of a patent also does not confer upon the patentee the right to use, sell or otherwise manufacture the subject invention. Historically, patent rights have been treated as exclusionary rights or negative rights inasmuch as they only gives the patentee the right to prevent third parties from manufacturing the subject invention.”
The Court also ruled that constitutional principles, including Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Directive Principles of State Policy, do not directly influence the decision on whether a patent should be granted or denied.
The Calcutta High Court ultimately set aside the order of the Patent Office and directed it to reconsider ITC’s patent application in accordance with the law and supported by valid reasoning and evidence.
Cause Title: ITC Limited v. The Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademark
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocates Gaurav Pachnanda and J Sai Deepak, Advocates Samik Mukherjee, Manosij Mukherjee, Amrita Majumdar, Mitul Dasgupta, Threcy Lawrence, K. K. Pandey, Teesham Das, Pooja Sett, Mallika Bothra
Respondent: Advocate Sanjukta Gupta