-
by sayum
08 April 2026 7:41 AM
“Technical Advancement Must Be Proven, Not Presumed”— In a significant pronouncement, the Delhi High Court, through Justice Amit Bansal, dismissed the appeal filed by Saint Gobain Glass France under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the rejection of its Indian patent application titled “Material comprising a stack of thin layers”. The Court upheld the decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that the application lacked inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and constituted an obvious optimisation of known technologies.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court held:
“The appellant has failed to provide the data required under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act, showing the technical advancement of the invention... Comparative Example 3 already meets the very performance parameters relied upon by the appellant, whereas the appellant’s own materials fail to satisfy the original specification’s target ranges.”
“Inventive Step Demands More Than Tinkering with Thickness”—Court Applies Novartis and Roche Doctrine on Obviousness
The invention claimed by Saint Gobain proposed a glass substrate stack with one silver-based functional layer, dielectric layers, and Nickel/Chromium blocking layers, meant to provide solar control and a glossy silver appearance in architectural glazings.
But the Court, applying the five-step obviousness test laid down in F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla and the three-step inventive step test from Novartis AG v. Union of India, held that no material improvement or unexpected technical effect had been demonstrated over known prior art.
Justice Bansal clarified that: “The inventive concept merely involves adjustments in the thickness of known layers—such as dielectric and blocking layers—which a skilled person in glass technology could achieve through routine optimisation.”
“Prior Art Was Already Silver-Coated”—Court Finds Claimed Stack Obvious When Compared with Known Glass Coating Technologies
The impugned patent application was refused on grounds that it was an obvious combination of five prior art documents, including WO 2014/164674, WO2014177798, WO2011062574, and Saint Gobain’s own earlier Indian filings.
The Court rejected Saint Gobain’s argument that the Controller “cherry-picked” elements from various documents and improperly mosaiced them. Referring to both the Manual of Patent Office Practice and international commentary in Terrell on the Law of Patents, the Court observed:
“Mosaicing of prior art is legally permissible, provided the combination arises naturally in the mind of a person skilled in the art. The present is not hindsight reconstruction, but a legitimate combination of teachings in the same technical field.”
“Comparative Data Doesn’t Prove What You Claim”—Court Criticises Inconsistencies Between Patent Claims and Technical Evidence
The Court devoted considerable attention to Tables 2 and 3 in the patent specification, and a subsequent expert affidavit by Mr. Uditendu Mukhopadhyay. It found glaring discrepancies:
“Even the expert affidavit filed by the appellant lacked crucial data such as solar factor, energy transmission, and external energy reflection. Without these, the claimed technical advancement remains unproven.”
Moreover, the Court noted that: “Comparative Example 3 in the patent’s own specification already meets the claimed performance targets—especially for light transmission and external reflection—thus nullifying any assertion of improvement.”
It further condemned Saint Gobain’s shifting of goalposts: “The appellant changed the target values post-facto in the affidavit, deviating from the specification. Such revision not only undermines credibility but directly contradicts their own prior claims.”
“India’s Skilled Person Is Not a Dullard”—Court Reinforces Higher Standard Under Indian Patent Law
Rejecting Saint Gobain’s submission that the invention was non-obvious, the Court reaffirmed that Indian law—under Section 2(1)(ja)—adopts a higher threshold than foreign jurisdictions.
Citing Rhodia Operations v. Controller of Patents, Justice Bansal observed: “A person skilled in the art under Indian law is not ordinary; they possess more than average skill, practical experience, and are aware of all relevant prior art. The claimed invention would have been obvious to such a person.”
The Court also addressed Saint Gobain’s reliance on French and EPO patent grants: “Patent rights are territorial in nature. A grant in France or Europe is irrelevant to the outcome under the Indian Patents Act.”
“Not Every Shine Is Invention”—Court Finds the Patent Just a Routine Workshop Improvement
Justice Bansal categorically rejected the idea that minor improvements or mere aesthetic differences constitute patentable ingenuity.
Quoting Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries, the Court held: “Mere collocation of known elements or tinkering with known parameters does not qualify as inventive step. There must be ingenuity in the application—something that does not suggest itself naturally to a skilled artisan.”
Appeal Dismissed, Patent Rejected
Concluding that the invention was obvious, lacking in technical advancement, and failed to meet the threshold of inventive step, the Court dismissed the appeal and vacated its prior interim protection:
“Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. The interim order dated 11th April 2024 is vacated. The Registry shall notify the Controller General of Patents accordingly.”
This judgment sends a clear message to patent applicants in India—routine variations in known technologies, especially those lacking measurable technical superiority, cannot cloak themselves in patent protection. The Delhi High Court has firmly reiterated that Indian patent law does not reward optimisation or aesthetic improvements masquerading as innovation.
Justice Amit Bansal’s meticulous analysis reaffirms the principle that patent law must foster genuine innovation, not incremental commercial refinements dressed as breakthroughs.
Date of Decision: 11 September 2025
