Short Summary
The writ petitioner challenged an order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had revoked his patent for a 'Sealing Device' due to lack of novelty based on US prior art. The petitioner argued that his device possessed novel features, such as a transparent body and ribbed wire. The Calcutta High Court set aside the IPAB's order, finding that the Board erred in its assessment and reliance on expert opinion.
Detailed Summary
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.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side). Understanding the court's reasoning in Sri Rajesh Kumar Banka vs The Union of India & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
The North Face Apparel CorpvsController of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Apex Laboratories Pvt LtdvsElder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Radico Khaitan LimitedvsPicadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.)vsMaharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance LimitedvsSahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.