In a landmark judgment, the Calcutta High Court has provided critical clarification on the interplay between morality and patentability under Indian law. The case involved ITC Limited's patent application for an invention titled "A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol," which was rejected by the Controller of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks on grounds related to public health and morality, citing its association with electronic cigarettes. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur presided over the matter and delivered a comprehensive analysis of Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Section 3(b) of the Patents Act prohibits the patenting of inventions whose use or exploitation could be contrary to public order or morality or cause serious prejudice to human, animal, or plant life. In ITC's case, the patent office rejected the application, asserting that the invention, being related to electronic cigarettes, would be prejudicial to human health and morality. However, the High Court found that this rejection lacked cogent scientific or technical evidence. Justice Kapur emphasized that the assessment of morality and public order in patent applications must be grounded in objective, evidence-based reasoning rather than subjective or preconceived notions.
The Court observed that the interaction between patent laws and ethics is complex and often fraught with difficulties. It held that Section 3(b) should not be interpreted to encompass all subjective concerns of morality, public order, or health without any scientific or technical evidence or cogent reasoning. The judge noted that the Controller's decision was unreasoned and cryptic, lacking any basis in independent scientific or technical evidence. The Court criticized the patent office for relying on a preconceived notion that all tobacco products are inherently harmful, without substantiating this with concrete evidence.
Furthermore, the Court clarified the scope of patent rights under Indian law. It stated that the grant of a patent does not confer upon the patentee the right to use, sell, or manufacture the invention. Instead, patent rights are exclusionary or negative rights, allowing the patentee to prevent third parties from manufacturing the invention. This distinction is crucial in understanding the nature of patent rights and their enforcement.
The Court also addressed the relevance of constitutional provisions in patent law. It held that the Directive Principles of State Policy or the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution have no role in adjudicating the validity or invalidity of an invention. This delineation underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of patent law as a specialized domain, distinct from broader constitutional considerations.
In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court set aside the order of the patent office and directed it to reconsider ITC's patent application in light of the Court's observations. This judgment reinforces the principle that patentability assessments must be based on objective, evidence-based criteria rather than subjective moral judgments. It provides clarity on the interpretation of Section 3(b) of the Patents Act and affirms the exclusionary nature of patent rights under Indian law. The decision is a significant development in Indian patent jurisprudence, offering guidance on the complex interplay between morality, public order, and patentability.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.