IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of novelty and inventive step under the Patents Act, 1970, for granting and revoking patents.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in OP (PT) No.1 of 2023: Original Petition (Patents) filed under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 to revoke Patent No.411774, which was granted by the 2nd respondent on 17 November 2022 and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit considering the facts and circumstances of the case.)

Background

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to revoke the patent granted by the second respondent to the first respondent inter alia on the grounds that the invention lacks novelty, inventive step and is patent ineligible under Sections 3(d) and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Patents Act).

2. The first respondent had applied for a patent for an invention titled 'Multi-stage aerobic bio-composter kitchen bin and a method of composting thereof' claiming priority from 30 March 2017. In the background section of the complete specification, the petitioner identified the problems associated with conventional methods of disposal of organic waste, such as pollution of groundwater, greenhouse gas emission, leachate, foul odour, et cetera, and, thereafter, dealt with the prior art in composting in the form of about four patents. After stating that the prior art in composting has inherent disadvantages such as requiring a means for aeration and mixing, involving complex construction, high capital cost, leachate production, foul odour, breeding of ants and insects, etc., the first respondent recited that the invention enables rapid, convenient and odour-free composting of organic waste into high-quality manure.

3. In the summary of the invention, the first respondent recited that the invention provides for a multi-stage aerobic composter comprising a plurality of ventilated trapezoidal containers, having an open top end and a covered bottom end, wherein the said bottom end of the ventilated container is smaller in diameter than the top end. Each container is separated by a divider and such divider has a perforation at its centre. The first respondent further disclosed that the invention contains a chimney with a detachable vented closure, which is located on the top lid, wherein said chimney is elevated and smaller in diameter than the top lid, and that a plate is placed at the bottom of the lowest container to ward off insects and rodents. The patent was granted on 17 November 2022 under Patent No.411774 by the second respondent.

4. The petitioner seeks revocation of this patent by contending that the subject of the claims thereof do not qualify as an invention within the meaning of the Patents Act. Revocation Revocation is also sought on the ground that the invention claimed in the claims is not novel and, in any event, obvious to a person skilled in the art. The contention that the invention is obvious and does not involve any inventive step is advanced by relying upon both patent (D1 and D2) and non-patent literature.

Apart from the above, the petitioner also assails the patent on the ground that the invention is patent-ineligible under Sections 3(d) and (f) of the Patents Act.

5. In the counter affidavit of the first respondent, the above contentions were refuted. The first respondent contended that all the features of the invention are not contained either in the cited patent or non-patent literature. As regards prior art D1, the first respondent contended that one of the objects of said prior art is heat retention, whereas heat retention is not relevant for an invention in India. The first respondent further asserted that moisture retention is relevant for the invention but not heat retention. As regards prior art D2, it was submitted that the invention disclosed therein is based on vermi-composting and, hence, does not qualify as analogous prior art. As regards non-patent literature, the first respondent contended that even the date of publication thereof was not specified by the petitioner. Consequently, it was contended that it is not possible to ascertain whether such literature was published prior