Sri Rajesh Kumar Banka v. The Union of India & Ors.

In the high-stakes world of patents, the line between a genuine invention and existing prior art can be razor-thin. But what happens when the very body tasked with deciding that line oversteps its bounds, acting as a technical expert rather than a fair adjudicator? This is the story of an inventor whose patent was wrongly revoked, and the court that stepped in to set things right.

Sri Rajesh Kumar Banka, the petitioner, held a patent for a 'Sealing Device' — an invention he believed carried genuinely novel features, including a transparent body and a ribbed wire design. However, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) revoked his patent, ruling that the device lacked novelty. The Board's conclusion rested heavily on what it considered to be relevant US prior art. Aggrieved by this decision, Banka approached the Calcutta High Court, challenging the revocation order and arguing that the Board had fundamentally misjudged the inventive merit of his device.

Banka's central argument was straightforward: his 'Sealing Device' was not a mere imitation of existing technology. The transparent body and ribbed wire were distinctive features that set his invention apart from anything disclosed in the US prior art cited against him. He contended that the IPAB had failed to properly appreciate these novel elements. On the other side, the IPAB stood by its assessment, maintaining that the prior art rendered the device obvious and undeserving of patent protection. The legal friction centered on whether the Board had conducted a fair and thorough evaluation of the invention's novelty, or whether it had substituted its own technical conclusions for properly tested evidence.

The Calcutta High Court ruled decisively in favor of Banka, setting aside the IPAB's order that had revoked his patent. The Court found that the Board had erred in its assessment of novelty and had placed undue reliance on expert opinion without subjecting it to the rigorous scrutiny that justice demands. Importantly, the Court cautioned against tribunals acting as technical experts themselves — a role that belongs to qualified witnesses, not to adjudicators. The Court emphasized that patentability must be determined by carefully analyzing all evidence placed before it, including the cross-examination of witnesses, rather than by the tribunal drawing its own technical inferences.

For founders, inventors, and IP professionals, this case carries a vital lesson: when challenging or defending a patent decision, the quality and testability of evidence matter far more than the technical confidence of the tribunal itself. Patent disputes should never be won or lost on a board's own technical assumptions — they must rest on evidence that has been properly examined, cross-examined, and weighed. If you are an innovator facing a patent revocation, ensure your legal team is prepared to challenge any expert opinion that has not been subjected to rigorous cross-examination. And if you sit on an adjudicatory body, remember: your role is to judge the evidence, not to become the expert.