Abstract Theory Not Supported By Scientific Evidence Lacks Novelty And Inventive Step

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 4/2025, I.A. 3780/2025 & I.A. 3781/2025 Delhi High Court

The appellants through this Appeal before the Delhi High Court sought to overturn a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing their patent application, titled "Innovative Change To Solve Any Dispute, Unexpected Business Loss, Closures, Financial Loss, Unexpected Accidents,". The application was rejected on the grounds that it did not qualify as an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Controller of Patents while rejecting the Patent application gave the following reasoning

• Lack of Novelty and Inventiveness: The claimed invention was not novel and inventive under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act. The subject matter of the claim was a black-colored wearing, which is very general and common in public use. The application did not claim any technical features of the black-coloured wearing, only its aesthetic property, i.e., colour.