Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 5262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Titan Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Controller of Patents and Designs, Chennai – Respondent
C.M.A. (PT) No. 44 of 2024
Decided On : 11-12-2025
For the Appellant : Kapil Kumar
For the Respondent: R. Durgarani
The rejection of a patent application must include comprehensive analysis of all claims and objections raised, ensuring that the authority applies due consideration to technical aspects rather than focusing solely on aesthetic features.
Headnote:(A) Patents Act, 1970 - Section 3(l) and Section 2(d) of Designs Act, 2000 - Patent application for 'A Jewellery Assembly' rejected by respondent citing it as an aesthetic creation - Appellant contends it features technical structural aspects reducing costs by using smaller gemstones - Application rejected without adequate consideration of claims, failing to analyze presented technical problems and solutions - Proper judicial review mandates that all claims and objections be addressed in the patent application process. (Paras 1-15)
(B) Necessity of offering hearing - Rejection of patent without an opportunity for the appellant conflicts with the principles of natural justice. (Paras 10-14)
(C) Requirement of adequate reasoning - Authorities must substantiate their decisions with comprehensive analysis of all claims and objections raised. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's patent application for a jewelry assembly was rejected on the grounds of the claimed invention fitting an aesthetic design category rather than a patentable invention containing technical solutions. The appellant argued that their invention resolves issues in gemstone manufacturing, emphasizing structural over aesthetic features.
Findings of Court:
The order rejecting the application lacked necessary analysis and failed to engage with the technical arguments presented; therefore, it was ruled as unwarranted. The court remanded the case for fresh consideration by the patent authority.
Issues: Whether the invention meets the criteria of patentability compared to the aesthetic classification and whether the appointed authority duly considered all critical aspects of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a proper patent decision requires addressing all grounds raised by the applicant comprehensively, ensuring the authority applies due consideration and engages with the technical distinctions of the invention.
Result: Impugned order set aside; the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. patent application details and rejection summary (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. technical vs. aesthetic features in patent claims (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. authority’s misinterpretation of patent registration concepts (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. requirement for thorough consideration of patent claims (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. necessity for comprehensive reasoning in patent decisions (Para 9) |
| 6. need for addressing technical problems in patent analysis (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 7. requirements for valid authority orders and appellant rights (Para 14) |
| 8. order to remand for fresh consideration of patent application (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
1. The present appeal is filed to set aside the impugned order passed by the Controller of Patents & Designs, namely the respondent in Indian Patent Application No.202041004928 and grant patent in respect of the said application.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
An application was made by the appellant on 04.02.2020 in Patent Application No.202041004928 for grant of patent titled "A Jewellery Assembly". The said application was rejected by stating that the claims made by the appellant falls under Section 3(l) of Patents Act and therefore, it is a suitable subject matter for a design application and not for a patent application. The appellant seeks patent for an invention titled ''A Jewellery Assembly''. According to the appellant, the said invention comprises of a base member, plurality of walls, and at least one segment defined between each adjacent walls of the plurality of walls, wherein, each of the at least one segment is defined with an inclination and a cavity is defined in a substantially central region of the base member; at least one gemstone disposed in the cavity; and a plurality of elongated gemstones disposed at a periphery of the cavity, wherein each of the plurality of elongated gemstones is configured to hold the at least one gemstone in the cavity; wherein, at least one gemstone and the plurality of elongated gemstones resembles a single unified square shaped gemstone.
3. According to the appellant, the structural configuration of jewellery assembly aids in reducing cost of the jewellery as it eliminates the need of expensive large diamonds of high cartage, as the configuration aids in accommodating a plurality of smaller gemstones which resemble a unified square shaped gemstone. Therefore, the application does not claim an aesthetic creation, rather it claims for technical structural features of the jewellery assembly. The appellant challenged the rejection of the invention under the Patents Act and contended that the text of the description focuses on technical aspects such as structural features as well as design features. The respondent had chosen to focus only on design features and failed to notice the detailed description of the intended structural features of the invention achieving the desired outcome.
4. It is further claimed that the real substance of the claimed invention lies in the constructional arrangement of the plurality of elongated gemstones to hold the central gemstone to form a single gemstone of larger size. This will reduce the overall cost of the jewellery. Thus the aspects disclosed in claim of invention does not relate to any literary, artistic or any aesthetic creation.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the rejection order was passed without application of mind as the respondent has misconstrued the concept of registration under the Patents Act and the Designs Act. The impugned order is only focussed on the reasons to bring the invention under aesthetic creation and not on the registration of the patent. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court on 04.11.2022 in Avery Dennison Corporation Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs . The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
"39. The improvement in the present case between the prior art and the subject invention is clear
