Modifications to basic workshop projects may not necessarily equate to shallow inventions
In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula, has ruled in favour of the Avery Dennison Corporation in the case titled 'Avery Dennison Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs' (IN Application No. 5160/DELNP/2013, titled 'Notched Fastener'). The Hon'ble Court provided a valuable benchmark for assessing non-obviousness or inventive step, a crucial factor in patent applications. The Court held that simplicity does not defeat an invention and reiterated this point by alluding to several landmark cases, including Vickers v. Siddell (1890) 7 R.P.C. 292, Pope Appliance Corp. v. Spanish River Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd, (1929) 46 R.P.C. 23, Terrell on the Law of Patents, Brugger v. Medic-Aid Ltd, [1996] R.P.C. 635, and others. The case revolved around a 'Notched Fastener' invention, a technical improvement over the closest prior art. The learned Counsel for the appellant meticulously described the technical advancement of the claimed invention, while the respondent's counsel argued that the invention was 'superficial' and a mere workshop improvement over the closest prior art. However, the Hon'ble Court observed that the claimed features are clearly different from the closest prior art, and the subject invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. The Court further noted that any variation or modification in the closest prior art is not tenable. From a comparison between the closest prior art and the subject matter of the impugned application, the Court concluded that the subject invention has clearly decipherable technical advantages over the closest prior art. The Court also considered the time gap between the prior art document and the invention under consideration as one of the sure tests in analyzing the existence of an inventive step. The Court noted that the claimed invention has been filed almost 18 years after the closest prior art, and no other prior art has been cited between 1992 (year of publication of the closest prior art) and 2010 (priority year of the impugned application) that deals with fasteners in the manner set forth in the claimed invention. Moreover, the Court observed that patents have been granted in other major jurisdictions, including the USA, Japan, South Korea, and China, for the subject invention. The Hon'ble Court set aside an impugned order dated 12 August 2021 and directed that the patent shall proceed for grant. The issue of evergreening would not arise in these facts, as per the Hon'ble Court's observations. The Hon'ble Court also provided that the Complete Specification clearly explains the disadvantages of the prior art and sets out in clear terms the various advantages of the subject invention. The case was heard by the Delhi High Court, offering a valuable addition for assessing non-obviousness of 'simple' inventions. The decision offers a significant precedent for future patent cases in India.
Read also:
- Exploring Harry Potter's Lineage: Decoding the Enigma of His Half-Blood Ancestry
- Elon Musk Acquires 26,400 Megawatt Gas Turbines for Powering His AI Project, Overlooks Necessary Permits for Operation!
- U Power's strategic collaborator UNEX EV has inked a Letter of Intent with Didi Mobility to deploy UOTTA(TM) battery-swapping electric vehicles in Mexico.
- Global Gaming Company, LINEUP Games, Moves Into Extensive Global Web3 Multi-Platform Gaming Network
