On February 18, 2026, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in FERTIN PHARMA A/S v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 25/2023) set aside a patent rejection order and directed de novo consideration of the application, emphasizing the statutory mandate of reasoned orders in quasi-judicial proceedings.
Senior Partner Kshitij Saxena, Senior Associate Saransh Vijayvargiya, and Associate Daksh Oberoi represented the Appellant on behalf of Kan and Krishme.
Background
The present appeal was filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging an order dated 07.02.2023 passed under Section 15, whereby Patent Application No. 202017042442 was refused.
The First Examination Report had originally raised multiple objections, including lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), lack of novelty under Section 2(1)(j), insufficiency of disclosure under Section 10(4), and non-patentability under Sections 3(d), 3(e) and 3(i).
However, the subsequent hearing notice confined the objections to novelty and sufficiency of disclosure.
Despite this, the impugned order proceeded in a cryptic manner. While it apparently referred to objections of novelty and insufficiency, the reasoning portion discussed prior art documents (D1–D4) and concluded that the invention was “obvious” to a person skilled in the art, without undertaking any meaningful claim-by-claim analysis or juxtaposition with the cited documents.
The order merely listed prior art references and arrived at a conclusion, without clearly articulating the statutory basis of refusal or providing analytical reasoning demonstrating how the claims failed to meet the requirements of the Act.
Held
The Hon’ble Court held that the impugned order suffered from multiple infirmities, including lack of clarity as to the precise ground of rejection and absence of reasoned analysis with respect to the cited prior arts.
The Court reiterated that the Assistant Controller, acting as a quasi-judicial authority, is mandated to provide convincing reasons while refusing a patent application.
Mere reference to prior art documents, without detailed reasoning or claim comparison, does not satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 15.
Observing that reasons are the bedrock of all judicial and quasi-judicial orders, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the application be considered afresh by a different Assistant Controller within a stipulated timeline.
This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural rigor and reasoned decision-making are integral to patent adjudication, particularly where valuable statutory rights are at stake.