NAVYA NETWORK INC vs ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

Judgment text excerpt

6-COMMP-L-15327-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 15327 OF 2025 Navya Network Inc. ...Petitioner Versus Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs ...Respondent ----- Mr. Manish Aryan (through VC), a/w. Mr. Abhai Pandey, Ms. Manisha Singh, Mr. Nishant Rai, Ms. Khushi Chauhan, Ms. Shweta Nisar i/b. SONAL DOSHI & CO. for Petitioner. Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Ms. Vaidehi Pradeep, Ms. Rutwik Rao, Mr. Pratam Gawali for Respondent. ----- CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. RESERVED ON : 16th MARCH 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 15th APRIL 2026 JUDGMENT 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”) challenging the Order dated 27th May 2024 Areeb 1 6-COMMP-L-15327-2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Respondent, i.e., Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, refusing the Petitioner’s Patent Application No. 2068/MUMNP/2014 titled “Medical Research Retrieval Engine", a PCT national phase application claiming priority to US Application No. 13/428,539 dated 23rd March 2012. 2. The Application was refused on two grounds: (i) lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act in view of the prior art documents D1- D3; and (ii) non-patentability under Section 3(k) on the ground that the claimed invention constitutes an algorithm and computer program per se. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner: 3. Mr. Aryan, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that while the Respondent found that Claims 1-24 lacked inventive step in view of prior art documents D1-D3, the Impugned Order contained no reasoning whatsoever as to how the claimed invention was taught by a combinati