In a significant judgment dated April 22, 2025, the Calcutta High Court (Original Side, Intellectual Property Rights Division) allowed Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks [1]¹, emphatically setting aside a 40-page rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents. The Court held that the application had been rejected not for technical deficiencies, but due to a supposed invalidity in the General Power of Attorney (GPA), and it called out the hyper-technical and mechanical approach adopted by the Patent Office.

Background

Huawei had filed Indian patent application no. 202237060506 concerning a communication method to reduce terminal power consumption during the paging process. Surprisingly, the Controller rejected the application on December 17, 2024, solely due to an alleged procedural irregularity: that the General Power of Attorney submitted by Huawei’s agent was not “in accordance with law.”

No objections related to novelty, inventive step, or industrial applicability were discussed in the impugned order. Despite Huawei having addressed technical objections in its submissions, and even though the issue of the GPA was not raised in the First Examination Report (FER), the application was summarily dismissed.

The Controller (“Respondent”) who rejected Huawei’s application pointed to specific sections of the Patents Act and Patent Rules, claiming that Huawei failed to fulfill the formal legal requirements related to the General Power of Attorney. He quoted the Indian Stamp Act, the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and the Registration Act, and even looked at practices from Europe. The rejection order was 40 pages log, focusing solely on legal and procedural matters rather than the invention itself.

In response to the refusal, Huawei filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court, contending that:

The GPA issue was raised for the first time only in the hearing notice.
The GPA copy submitted was self-attested, referencing an original already on record in another application—a practice explicitly permitted under Departmental Circular No. 12 of 2009.
The law does not warrant outright rejection of a patent application for this procedural defect.
Most notably, the Controller had earlier written a complaint to the Government about GPAs, which, according to the appellant, indicated bias and a pre-meditated approach.

Court’s Observations

The court delivered a scathing critique of the rejection order, noting:

“The impugned order is a wasteful exercise of time, expense and money and serves no purpose whatsoever.” The Controller had “mechanically passed” the order “without any application of mind.”
There was “no adjudication on the merits of the case” and the decision was “counter-productive to the entire object behind the grant of patents.”

It is “misplaced” to rely on Sections 127 and 132 of the Patents Act and Rules 126 and 135 of the Patent Rules because none of these provisions actually requires a patent application to be rejected just on the basis of issues related to a POA.
Departmental Circular No. 12 of 2009 has not been considered at all. The departmental circular explicitly allowed to submit a self-attested copy of POA with the forwarding letter where the original POA is already on file in another application.
The Controller failed to give an Applicant a chance to cure the defect—violating principles of natural justice.
At most, the application should be kept in abeyance pending rectification of the defect.
The 40-page rejection order reproduced concerns from an unrelated letter the Controller had sent earlier to the Government, raising serious questions of impartiality.

The court emphasized that procedural rules are meant to serve justice—not defeat it. Citing Amit Roy v. Jyothendrasinhji Viramsinhji [2],² the Court reaffirmed that a GPA need not be compulsorily notarized or registered under Indian law.

Finally, the matter was remanded to a different Controller for fresh consideration, to be concluded within four months.

Our Analysis and Conclusion

This case shines a light on a common challenge that Applicants often face: the procedural roadblocks that can suppress genuine innovation. It serves as a reminder that while rules are essential, they shouldn’t be used to deny individuals a fair shot—especially when it comes to ground breaking ideas and technology.

By taking a stand against this kind of bureaucratic decision-making, Huawei not only protected its own interests but also helped clarify the legal jurisprudence for other market players involved. This ruling is likely to serve as a precedent in future cases where form might overshadow substance.

This ruling demonstrates that the courts are prepared to intervene when things go wrong, ensuring that Applicant can anticipate fair treatment when they challenge unjust practices. As India continues to carve out its place in the global innovation arena, such decisions contribute to a more transparent and trustworthy environment for all innovators.