On 27 February 2025 the Madras High Court upheld an Indian Patent Office (IPO) refusal in Navya Network v The Controller of Patents & Designs (CMA (PT) 13 of 2024). Its judgment was based solely on its analysis of lack of inventive step and failed to address the IPO’s second finding pertaining to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act 1970. This ruling raises questions around procedural completeness.

Case background

Navya Network had filed a patent application for an invention titled “Treatment Related Quantitative Decision Engine” (951/CHENP/2013). The system aimed to help patients choose between multiple treatment options by generating computer-based reports.

The IPO rejected the application on two grounds:

  • lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act; and
  • patentability exclusion under Section 3(k),which bars patents for mathematical methods, business methods, algorithms or computer programs per se.

Navya challenged both grounds on appeal, arguing that the IPO had incorrectly applied Section 3(k) and failed to properly assess inventive step. However, the Madras High Court confined its analysis to the latter issue. It examined the key features of the claimed invention against three prior art documents (D1, D2 and D3), finding that each component was either disclosed or would be obvious to a person skilled in the art. For example:

  • D3 included patient interaction;
  • D2 covered grading and scoring in addition to patient interaction; and
  • D1 addressed hierarchical ranking of treatment options and patient preferences.

The court observed that all cited prior art documents were analogous since they shared a common field with the claimed invention, which would lead persons skilled in the art to D2 and D1 – and thereby to the claimed invention. Further, it held that mere refining of the treatment score based on expert grading did not represent a technical advancement over the prior art.

Since the IPO’s finding on inventive step was affirmed, the court chose not to delve into the Section 3(k) determination – the Controller’s other reason for refusing the application – deeming it an unnecessary exercise. Ultimately, the court refused the appeal.

Analysis of the decision

This ruling is intriguing in terms of procedural nuance. By choosing not to adjudicate upon all grounds of appeal, the court seems to advocate for the ‘judicial economy’ approach, which refers to efficient litigation management to avoid wasting the judiciary's time and resources. A court may consolidate two cases for trial to save time, for example.

However, in this case, this approach raises procedural concerns. Selective adjudication may conflict with the principles of natural justice, especially when the IPO is held to a higher standard that requires addressing all grounds. This issue was also examined in Best Agrolife v Deputy Controller of Patents, in which the Delhi High Court ruled in the plaintiff’s favour because the IPO had failed to address all objections in a pre-grant opposition, thus violating natural justice (2022).

This issue becomes more complex when appellate courts reverse the lower court's decision but find unresolved objections. They then face two options:

  • remanding the case for fresh adjudication; or
  • deciding the unresolved issues themselves.

However, the Indian Supreme Court discourages remand as it prolongs litigation. It instead emphasises the importance of addressing all issues in a suit.

Considering the high volume of appeals in patent rejection cases, courts may thus be better served by focusing on comprehensive decisions rather than speed, thereby preventing repetitive proceedings and prolonged delays.

Himani Pandey

Remfry & Sagar