Sumitomo Shi FW Energia Oy v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

(T)CMA(PT)/50/2023 (OA/51/2020/PT/CHN)

The appellant challenged the refusal order by the Deputy Controller of Patents, which rejected its patent application for a circulating fluidized bed boiler due to lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that their improvisation introduced significant advantages over prior art, such as reduced heat exchanges and improved efficiency. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
(T)CMA(PT)/50/2023 (OA/51/2020/PT/CHN)
Judge(s)
N.Seshasayee

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Sumitomo Shi FW Energia Oy vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 628/2021

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals LimitedvsCG Power And Industrial Solutions Limited & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking temporary injunction regarding alleged infringement and passing off related to the Crompton brand. The Plaintiff contended that Defendants were deceptively using the protected trade name 'Crompton' across their product lines, despite prior warnings. While the court noted the ongoing dispute over design piracy of pumps, it issued a specific interim direction compelling Defendant No. 1 to formally instruct its channel partners and distributors to cease all use of the Plaintiff's trademark on products and online platforms.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 178/2022 and C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 17/2023

Emerson Process Mangement Power And Water Solutions IncvsController Of Patents

Emerson Process Management filed appeals challenging the rejection of its patent applications (Nos. 1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015) relating to computer software. The court noted that the main ground for rejection—the lack of novelty and inventiveness in associated hardware—no longer aligns with current Patent Office guidelines.

patentCOMMERCIAL MISC. PETITION NO. 99 OF 2025 (2025:BHC-OS:11861)

Mohun Nicholas D'SouzavsThe Controller of Patents of Designs

The petitioner challenged the refusal of his patent application, titled "TAMPER EVIDENT TWIST SEAL WITH BREAKAWAY ANCHOR MECHANISM," which was rejected on grounds of lack of inventive steps/obviousness under Section 25(1)(e) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the Controller failed to conduct a proper analysis regarding obviousness, specifically failing to consider the differences between the claimed invention and prior art as pointed out by the applicant.

patentCOMMP-24-2023

Mastery Logistics Systems, Inc.vsThe Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Mumbai

The Bombay High Court addressed a petition seeking to quash an earlier trademark registration granted by the Senior Examiner. The Petitioner argued that their submissions regarding opposition were ignored in the original decision. Recognizing the need for a thorough review, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Trademark Authority for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties' contentions are taken into account.

patent(PT) A No. 3 of 2024 & OP(PT) No.1 of 2024

Versuni Holding Bv Trading As PreethivsMaya Appliances Private Limited

This Madras High Court judgment addresses the maintainability of a patent revocation application filed by Versuni Holding Bv Trading As Preethi against Maya Appliances Private Limited. The core issue was whether the petitioner could file this separate revocation petition when they had already contested the validity of Indian Patent No. 351954 as a counter-claim in an infringement suit before the Delhi High Court. The court held that once a defense is exercised in one forum, it cannot be re-agitated in another.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call