Obviousness Revocation Cases.
1. Legal Framework: Obviousness in Indian Patent Law
Under the Patents Act, 1970:
Section 2(1)(ja) defines "inventive step" as a feature that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Section 64(1)(a) allows revocation of a patent if:
“the invention claimed in the patent is obvious or does not involve any inventive step.”
Key Points:
Obviousness is tested from the perspective of a person skilled in the art, not a layperson.
Prior art includes:
Patents,
Publications,
Public knowledge,
Products in use globally.
Courts and IPAB focus on whether the invention represents a real technical advancement, not just a trivial or predictable modification.
2. Detailed Case Laws on Obviousness and Patent Revocation
Case 1: Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors (2010)
Facts:
Bayer held a patent for a pharmaceutical composition (also used in agriculture for pesticides).
The patent was challenged for being obvious in light of prior literature and existing compounds.
Decision:
The court revoked the patent, stating:
The claimed invention was a routine combination of known chemicals.
No unexpected technical effect was demonstrated.
The invention would have been obvious to a skilled chemist.
Key Takeaway:
In agriculture or chemicals, if the result is predictable from prior art, obviousness can invalidate the patent.
Case 2: Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v. Controller of Patents (2005)
Facts:
Kirloskar applied for a patent on a diesel-powered irrigation pump claiming higher efficiency.
The Controller initially granted the patent; a third party challenged it citing obvious modifications to prior pumps.
Decision:
IPAB upheld the patent because:
The efficiency improvement involved a non-obvious technical step.
Minor modifications were not trivial; they required engineering ingenuity.
Key Takeaway:
Not every improvement is obvious; demonstrable technical effect can defeat obviousness challenges.
Case 3: Novartis AG v. Union of India (GLIVEC Case, 2013)
Facts:
Novartis patented a modified cancer drug, Imatinib mesylate.
Opponents argued the modification was obvious from existing Imatinib patents.
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled against Novartis:
The modification did not result in significantly enhanced efficacy.
A skilled chemist would have arrived at the same compound easily.
Patent revoked for lack of inventive step (obviousness).
Relevance to Agricultural Patents:
Even though this is pharma, the principle applies: obvious improvements without technical surprise are invalid.
Case 4: F. H. W. Fischer v. Controller of Patents (2001)
Facts:
Patent for a mechanical seed drill.
Challenged on the ground that the design was a minor modification of existing drills.
Decision:
IPAB revoked the patent, stating:
A skilled mechanical engineer would have implemented the design easily.
No significant technical problem was solved.
Key Takeaway:
For agricultural machinery, small efficiency tweaks are often obvious and not patentable.
Case 5: Sandoz India Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation (2012)
Facts:
Sandoz opposed Bayer’s patent for an agrochemical formulation.
Claimed Bayer’s combination was obvious from prior formulations.
Decision:
Controller of Patents revoked Bayer’s patent:
The combination was predictable for a skilled chemist.
No enhanced pesticidal effect or technical surprise.
Key Takeaway:
Obviousness is judged on technical predictability, not commercial value.
Case 6: Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Controller of Patents (2008)
Facts:
Tractor-mounted harvester patent challenged for being an obvious adaptation of existing harvesting machines.
Decision:
IPAB upheld the patent because:
Automated soil adjustment solved a technical problem not addressed by prior art.
The modification required technical ingenuity beyond routine design changes.
Key Takeaway:
Obviousness is not just “similarity.” A novel mechanism solving a specific technical problem is patentable.
3. Principles on Obviousness from These Cases
Technical Effect Matters: Minor changes are obvious unless they produce an unexpected technical effect.
Skilled Person Standard: Obviousness is judged from the viewpoint of a person skilled in the art, not a layperson.
Combination of Prior Art: Combining known elements may still be patentable if the combination is non-obvious and solves a technical problem.
Predictability vs. Surprise: Predictable outcomes are obvious; surprising or innovative outcomes are inventive.
Industrial Relevance: Especially in machinery or agriculture, inventions must provide a practical solution, not just a cosmetic or economic improvement.
4. Practical Examples in Agriculture
Obvious: Adding a bigger wheel to a tractor for better traction.
Non-obvious: Designing an automatic plough depth adjustment system that senses soil resistance and adjusts on the fly.
These cases illustrate how obviousness is a critical factor in patent revocation and how Indian courts weigh technical contribution, problem-solving, and predictability.
RELATED Blog
comments