Patent Rejection Must Be Reasoned: Bombay High Court Reminds Patent Office of Its Duty

Deepak Nitrite Limited approached the Bombay High Court after the Patent Office rejected its application for a patent on free‑flowing food grade sodium nitrite and its production method under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, which requires an inventive step involving technical advance or economic significance and not being obvious to a skilled person.

The Patent Office argued that the product claims lacked inventiveness because the only distinction was a reduction in impurities, and no compound ever claims to be 100% free from impurities, making such reduction a matter of common general knowledge.

It further contended that the process claims were routine since filtration was a standard laboratory step, treating this single step as sufficient to deny inventive step.

The petitioner pleaded that the impurity profile was unique and specifically tailored to achieve food grade quality, and that the inventive contribution lay in the integrated sequencing of multiple steps that dissolving, heating, evaporating, centrifuging, drying in a cold zone, and coating with a food‑grade anti‑caking agent—taken together as a unit, producing a synergistic effect.

The Court found that the Patent Office had failed to cite any source for its assertion of common general knowledge and had not provided a reasoned analysis of the process claims, thereby passing a non‑speaking order contrary to the principles of natural justice.

It held that a rejection must be a speaking order, setting out reasons, sources, and application of mind, and that bald assertions without evidence are impermissible.

Consequently, the Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter to a new Controller for fresh consideration within twelve weeks.

In short patent office’s decision cannot rest on assumptions or generalities; it must be reasoned, transparent, and evidence based.