Calcutta HC sets aside patent rejection for high-performance glass fibre composition, remands matter to Controller [Read Judgment]

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order passed by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks rejecting a patent application relating to a composition for high-performance glass, high-performance glass fibre, and articles made therefrom, holding that the decision suffered from serious infirmities, including lack of reasoning and non-consideration of material submissions. The Court has remanded the matter to the Controller for a fresh decision within three months.

The appeal was filed by OCV Intellectual Capital LLC challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 1733/KOLNP/2008), which had been refused on the grounds of lack of novelty under Section 2(1)(j), lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), and non-patentable subject matter under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The invention aimed to achieve the superior properties of S-glass fibres at a lower manufacturing cost by eliminating the need for platinum-lined furnaces, thereby enabling production through a direct-melt process in a refractory-lined furnace. The appellant contended that the Controller’s order was perverse and unreasoned, particularly for ignoring the doctrine of “teaching away.”

The Controller had relied on a prior art document which disclosed a maximum magnesium oxide (MgO) content of 4.5 per cent, whereas the claimed invention required at least 5 per cent MgO. According to the appellant, the prior art discouraged increasing MgO content as it adversely affected the manufacture of high-temperature glass fibres and therefore taught away from the claimed invention.

Allowing the appeal, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed that the impugned order itself acknowledged the numerical difference in MgO content but failed to examine whether even a 0.5 per cent variation could confer novelty. The Court reiterated that the doctrine of teaching away is well recognised and applies where prior art discourages a person skilled in the art from adopting the path taken by the invention. The failure to consider this aspect, the Court held, vitiated the findings on both novelty and inventive step.

On the issue of inventive step, the High Court noted that the Controller merely summarised the prior art documents and concluded that the invention was obvious, without offering any analytical reasoning. The Court held that a conclusion unsupported by reasons is unsustainable, particularly in patent matters, and found that the impugned order contained no discussion on how the prior art, either individually or by mosaicing, rendered the invention obvious.

With respect to the rejection under Section 3(e), the Court noted that the appellant had specifically argued that the claimed composition resulted in technical and economic advancement and was not a mere admixture. The complete absence of any consideration of this contention, the Court observed, further undermined the validity of the Controller’s decision.

In view of the non-consideration of material submissions and the lack of reasons, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Controller to be decided afresh within three months. The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the patent application and that all issues were left open for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Case Details:
OCV Intellectual Capital LLC v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
IPDPTA 34 of 2022
High Court at Calcutta, Intellectual Property Rights Division
Judge: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
Judgment delivered on: 06 January 2026

[Read Judgment]