We are pleased to share that our team at Kan & Krishme successfully represented The Nippon Signal Co., Ltd. before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, which vide judgment dated 29 May 2026 set aside the impugned refusal order and directed fresh consideration of Patent Application No. 201617036284 relating to a “Redundant Control Device and System Switching Method”.
The appeal, filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenged the refusal order dated 18.07.2024, which had rejected the application on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act owing to cited prior arts D1 and D2.
⚖️ Key Legal Takeaways:
✅ Inventive Step Analysis Must Be Reasoned
Merely citing prior art is not enough. The Controller must engage with the applicant’s submissions and explain why the claimed invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.
✅ Prior Art Must Be Properly Distinguished
The Court noted that the applicant had extensively demonstrated the technical distinctions between the claimed invention and cited documents D1 and D2, including differences in system architecture, synchronization mechanisms, failover operations, and train-specific implementation, which were not meaningfully considered in the refusal order.
✅ Consideration of Written Submissions Is Mandatory
A quasi-judicial order cannot overlook detailed responses and comparative analyses submitted by the applicant. Failure to address material submissions renders the decision vulnerable to challenge.
✅ Obviousness Cannot Be Based on Broad Generalisations
The mere fact that an invention belongs to a known technological field does not establish lack of inventive step. The assessment must focus on the specific technical contribution and advantages achieved by the claimed invention.
✅ Speaking Orders Are Essential
Patent refusal orders must contain clear reasoning demonstrating how the Controller arrived at the conclusion that the invention lacks patentability. Mechanical reproduction of objections is insufficient.
📌 Result
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court set aside the impugned refusal order and remanded the matter to the Patent Office for fresh consideration in accordance with law after duly examining the applicant’s submissions and the claimed technical distinctions.
Congratulations to our team—Ms. Kanu Priya (Senior Partner), Mr. Saransh Vijayvargiya (Senior Associate) & Mr. Daksh Oberoi (Associate) for their meticulous preparation and effective advocacy before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.