Calcutta High Court
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co … vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And … on 13 June, 2025
Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur
Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur
OIP-48
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
(Intellectual Property Rights Division)
IPDPTA/14/2024
IA NO: GA-COM/2/2024
SHINDENGEN ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CO LTD
VS
ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Date : 13th June, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. N. Banerjee, Adv.
...for appellant
Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta, Adv.
...for controller
The Court: The instant appeal is against an order dated 25 April, 2024
rejecting an application titled "A LAMP LIGHTNING CONTROL CIRCUIT".
Briefly the application relates to lamp lightning control circuits that
separate alternating current outputs into positive and negative sides and
supply power for battery charging and lamps and specifically to control circuits
which stabilize supply of power source of lamps. The invention also protects
the ultimate load.
The invention seeks to achieve is to suppress the peak voltage supplied
to the load by delaying the firing timing of the thyristor, while at the same time
reducing discarding of heat at the regulators. Thus, the real object of the
present invention is to supply stable voltages to the lamps even when the
output voltage of the alternating - current generator varies, but the variation is
absorbed.
2
Pursuant to the filing of the above application and submission of the
First Examination Report, the appellant had submitted a detailed response
with regard to the two cited prior arts, inter alia, addressing all the substantive
and formal requirements raised in the FER.
Subsequently, a hearing notice dated 20th October 2023 was received by
the appellant. Pursuant to the above, a hearing was conducted and the
appellant also filed their Written Notes of Submissions.
By the impugned order, the Controller has rejected the application for
patent primarily on the ground that the features of the cited documents D1 to
D3 give obviousness to the person skilled in the art. It is also been held that
the invention is a mere aggregation of prior arts. The invention has also been
rejected on the ground that it lacked inventive features with regard to the cited
prior art documents. In such circumstances, the subject invention has been
dismissed on the ground of Section 2(i)(j) and 2(i)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that there are no reasons in
the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of
violation of the principles of natural justice. Significantly, there was no
difference in content between the hearing notice and the impugned order. The
impugned order is a verbatim reproduction of the hearing notice and does not
deal with the response filed by the appellant. It is further contended that the
prior art documents cited did not affect the patentability of the subject
invention. Each of the prior arts had been comprehensively dealt with by their
appellant in their submissions which has been totally ignored in the impugned
order.
3
The impugned order does not deal with the documents nor evidence
relied on by the appellant. In particular, the appellant had relied on an
international search report which allegedly suggested that the cited prior art
documents could not be the basis for denying novelty nor inventive steps of the
subject application. In such circumstances the impugned order is liable to be
set aside and the matter be remanded to the respondent Authorities.
On behalf of the respondent Controller it is fairly submitted, that there
are no reasons in the impugned order and the impugned order cannot be
sustained.
A bare perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Controller
has simply arrived at a conclusion that the subject application for patent was
liable to be rejected on the ground of obviousness, lack of inventive steps and
lack of novelty. The broad manner in which the impugned order has been
passed reflects that though the Controller has said everything but in fact said
nothing. There are no reasons in the impugned order. It is now well settled that
reasons form a critical aspect of any order. In State Bank of India vs. Ajay
Kumar Sood (2023) 7 SCC 282, it has been held as follows;
“A judgment culminates in a conclusion. But its content represents
the basis for the conclusion. A judgment is hence a manifestation of
reason. The reasons provide the basis of the view which the decision
maker has espoused, of the balances which have been drawn. That
is why reasons are crucial to the legitimacy of a judge’s work. They
provide an insight into judicial analysis, explaining to the reader
why what is written has been written. The reasons, as much as the
final conclusion, are open to scrutiny. A judgment is written
primarily for the parties in a forensic contest. The scrutiny is first
and foremost by the person for whom the decision is meant-the
conflicting parties before the court. At a secondary level, reasons
furnish the basis for challenging a judicial outcome in a higher forum.
The validity of the decision is tested by the underlying content and
reasons. But there is more. Equally significant is the fact that a
judgment speaks to the present and to the future. Judicial outcomes
4
taken singularly or in combination have an impact upon human lives.
Hence, a judgment is amenable to wider critique and scrutiny, going
beyond the Immediate contest in a courtroom. Citizens, researchers
and journalists continuously evaluate the work of courts as public
institutions committed to governance under law. Judgment writing is
hence a critical instrument in fostering the rule of law and in curbing
rule by the law.”
In view of the above, the impugned order is unsustainable and set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Controller with a direction to dispose of
the same afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The
above exercise is to be completed within three months from the date of
communication of this order. It is made clear that there has been no expression
or adjudication on the merits of the case and all questions are left open to be
decided afresh.
With the above directions, IPDPTA/14/2024 alongwith all connected
application including GA-COM/2/2024 stands disposed of.
(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)
SK.