Madras High Court Grants Patent Applicant Opportunity for Prototype Demonstration in Review Proceedings: Writ Petition (IPD) No.36 of 2025

The Madras High Court has intervened in a patent dispute, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness when an inventor seeks to demonstrate the feasibility of their work. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, presiding over the matter involving applicant Kannan Gopalakrishnan, ruled that the Patent Office must provide an opportunity for the demonstration of a prototype before finalizing the fate of the application.

The Procedural Labyrinth

The dispute centers on a patent application for a "Solar Supplemental Power Source," filed in August 2020. The invention purports to function as an electro-mechanical device capable of generating electricity even in the absence of sunlight, utilizing unbalanced arm loads, gravitational, and buoyant forces to rotate a wheel structure.

In November 2024, the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs rejected the application, citing Section 3(a) of the Patents Act, 1970, which precludes the patenting of inventions that appear frivolous or claimed as contrary to well-established natural laws. When the applicant attempted to challenge this through a review petition, it was summarily dismissed in June 2025 without a hearing, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Conflict of Perspectives

The petitioner argued that his invention rests on demonstrable scientific principles and that the rejection was premature, having been finalized without affording him a fair hearing to prove the prototype's efficacy. Conversely, the respondents maintained that adequate opportunities had already been provided during the initial examination process and that no ground for review existed.

The Court, upon reviewing the records, noted that the legal threshold for review—akin to the principles under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code—had not necessarily been breached. However, it identified a significant equity concern, acknowledging that an inventor who has invested effort into a physical prototype deserves a chance to showcase its function.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring substantive justice in intellectual property matters. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh noted:

• "The petitioner is now claiming that prototype is available for demonstration and petitioner will be able to demonstrate before second respondent the working of the machinery and therefore, the petitioner is only seeking an opportunity to demonstrate his invention."
• "This Court is inclined to grant one opportunity to petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner has applied his mind in inventing a product and sufficient opportunity is given to demonstrate such invention before the competent authority."
• "This order is passed more on the ground of equity by exercising discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure that an invention made does not go waste and all possible opportunities are given to sustain such an invention."

The Court's Directive

Ultimately, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific, time-bound instructions. The petitioner has been granted four weeks to present his prototype for demonstration before the second respondent. Following this, the Patent Office is required to review the performance and issue a reasoned decision within a four-month timeframe.

This ruling reaffirms that while administrative authorities must guard against frivolous patent filings, patent law should not be a barrier to innovation when the applicant can offer tangible proof of their invention’s operation through direct demonstration.