Indian Patent Office

Delhi High Court Delivers Major Relief, Revives Trident’s Air-Rich Yarn Patent Battle

by

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Patent Office’s 2021 order rejecting Trident Limited’s patent application for its “air-rich” yarn and fabric technology. The Court directed the Patent Office to conduct a fresh review and assess the application on its merits.

Court finds major flaws in earlier rejection

The Court observed that the Patent Office failed to properly examine the core inventive feature of the claimed invention. Trident had highlighted that its yarn contains pores distributed uniformly across the entire radial cross-section. The Court held that this structural feature was central to determining novelty and inventive step.

The earlier decision had questioned whether Trident used any special means to achieve this uniform pore structure. The Court disagreed. It noted that Trident had submitted detailed manufacturing parameters, and these disclosed how the unique pore distribution was achieved. It ruled that this evidence should have been assessed more carefully.

Trident’s claim and technical advantages

Trident’s technology relates to air-rich yarns and fabrics and the process for manufacturing them. The company claims its yarn improves wettability, absorbency, and drying speed. The fabric also offers enhanced thickness and a softer feel. Trident asserts that its terry fabrics can absorb water instantly and dry significantly faster than conventional fabrics.

Fresh hearing ordered

The Court reversed the earlier rejection and remanded the case to the Patent Office. It ordered that a different Controller must hear and decide the matter. The fresh examination must take place within six months. The Court also instructed the authority to evaluate the invention independently and without influence from the previous decision.

Significance for the textile industry

The ruling reinforces the requirement for reasoned and technically grounded decisions in patent matters. It highlights that structural and functional features of textile innovations must be examined thoroughly. The decision may encourage more patent filings in the textile and fibre-engineering sectors. For Trident, the judgement offers a renewed opportunity to secure exclusive rights over its air-rich yarn technology in India.

Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Patent Office Refusal of Pharmacyclics Application

by

The Calcutta High Court has overturned the Indian Patent Office’s (IPO) refusal of a divisional patent application filed by Pharmacyclics LLC, a U.S.-based biopharmaceutical company. The ruling reaffirms that divisional applications in India can be valid even if their claims differ from the parent application, as long as they find support in the original specification.

Court Restores Fair Examination

The case involved Pharmacyclics’ divisional application concerning a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, used in combination therapies for cancer treatment. The IPO had earlier rejected the application, saying the divisional claims were not disclosed in the parent application’s claims and that the shift from method to product claims made it invalid.

However, the Calcutta High Court found that the IPO’s stance was inconsistent. In the first office action, the examiner had accepted the divisional as maintainable. Later, during the hearing stage, the IPO reversed its position and rejected the application on procedural grounds.

Justice observed that such a sudden change violated the principle of natural justice. Once the IPO accepted maintainability, it was obliged to proceed with substantive examination on merits instead of questioning the divisional’s validity.

Specification Support Is Key

The Court also clarified that Section 16 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 does not restrict divisional claims to those identical to the parent application. What matters, it said, is that the divisional claims are “fairly based” on the complete specification of the parent.

Citing earlier precedents such as Syngenta Crop Protection AG v Controller of Patents and Designs, the Court reaffirmed that divisional applications can stand on their own if supported by the parent disclosure, even when their claims vary in scope or type.

Fresh Review Ordered

The Court set aside the IPO’s refusal order and directed it to re-examine the divisional application on substantive grounds, such as novelty and inventive step. It also instructed the office to ensure that applicants receive consistent and transparent treatment during prosecution.

Broader Impact on Patent Practice

This ruling strengthens the position of patent applicants in India, especially in the pharmaceutical and life-sciences sector, where divisional filings are common to protect different aspects of complex inventions.

Experts say the decision promotes procedural fairness and aligns Indian patent practice with global standards. It also encourages applicants to draft comprehensive specifications that can support multiple claim sets for future divisional filings.

While the ruling applies directly to this case, it is expected to influence other High Courts and the IPO’s approach to divisional patents in ongoing and future cases.