Invention Must Not Go To Waste, Opportunity Be Given To Sustain: Madras High Court Directs Patents Controller To See Demo After Rejection
The invention is an electromechanical prime mover designed to generate electricity by using buoyant and gravitational forces to rotate an unbalanced, multi-armed wheel structure, allowing for power generation even in the absence of sunlight.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has observed that an invention made does not go to waste, and all possible opportunities are given to sustain such an invention; therefore, it directed the Controller of Patents and Designs to see the prototype for demonstration.
The Controller found that the invention appears to be an invention which is frivolous or which claims anything obviously contrary to the well-established natural laws, and therefore, it does not meet the criteria for a patent.
The Bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh held, “In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to have the prototype available for demonstration before second respondent within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent shall permit the petitioner to demonstrate the working of the prototype and ultimately, take a decision within a period of four (4) months after completion of demonstration by the petitioner and a reasoned decision shall be taken. This order is passed more on the ground of equity by exercising discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure that an invention made does not go waste and all possible opportunities are given to sustain such an invention.”
Advocate EC Ramesh appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas CSC K Gangadaran appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their review application regarding a patent titled ‘Solar Supplemental Power Source,’ which was initially denied for failing to meet requirements under Section 3(a) of the Patents Act. After the initial rejection, the petitioner sought a review under Section 77, providing supplemental evidence, including video clips and prototype links. However, the second respondent summarily rejected the review application, without scheduling a hearing or providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
Contention of the parties
The Petitioner submitted that the patent rights are valuable rights, and the rejection or refusal of the patent application cannot take place without affording a sufficient opportunity of fair hearing to the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the review application was rejected without affording any opportunity to the Petitioner.
The Respondent stated that repeated opportunities were given to the Petitioner, and despite the same, the Petitioner was not able to make out a ground for review, and therefore, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent in the review application.
Observations of the Court
The Court said that the invention discloses a prime mover, preferably an electro-mechanical device with an end goal for generating electricity, which can operate even when solar energy is not available. It comprises a wheel structure imparted with multiple arms and arm loads, alongwith the feeder box to cycle through the side tank. The feeder box regulates the arm movement within the feeder box using the treaded guides. Due to the buoyant and gravitational forces, the unbalanced arm loads cause the imbalance in the wheel structure and rotate the entire wheel structure along the guided track. This prime mover can be used primarily for generating electricity by connecting it to an electrical generator.
The Court observed, “The petitioner is now claiming that prototype is available for demonstration and petitioner will be able to demonstrate before second respondent the working of the machinery and therefore, the petitioner is only seeking an opportunity to demonstrate his invention. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to grant one opportunity to petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner has applied his mind in inventing a product and sufficient opportunity is given to demonstrate such invention before the competent authority.”
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Kannan Gopalakrishnan v. Controller of Patents and Anr. [Writ Petition (IPD) No.36 of 2025 and W.M.P.(IPD) No.26 of 2025]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates EC Ramesh and N Lavanya
Respondents: CSC K Gangadaran