In the case of Navya Network Inc. vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [2026:BHC-OS:9481] the appellant challenged the refusal of its patent application number 2068/MUMNP/2014, entitled “Medical Research Retrieval Engine”.

The subject invention related to a system and method for retrieving medical research documents using predefined relational expressions mapped to an ontological hierarchy derived from medical literature. The application was refused on the grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non‑patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act on the basis that the invention was an algorithm and computer program per se.

The Appellant assailed the impugned order on the following grounds:

• Absence of a reasoned analysis of inventive step: The Controller failed to apply the five‑step test for examining inventive step laid down in F. Hoffmann‑La Roche Ltd. vs Cipla, later reaffirmed in Tapas Chatterjee vs Assistant Controller of Patents. No explanation was provided as to how the prior art disclosed or rendered obvious the essential features of the claim.
• Violation of the principles of natural justice: The reasoning provided in the impugned order for refusing the claims on the ground of Section 3(k) was different from the objection communicated in the hearing notice. While the hearing notice objected that the claims did not define any hardware features and were in the nature of a computer program, the impugned order took a new position that the invention involved a non‑technical “self-learned ontology” algorithm.
• Erroneous consideration of technical effect: The invention addressed a technical problem i.e. inefficiency in retrieving relevant medical documents and provided a hardware‑implemented technical solution producing improved search efficiency and reduced computational load. The Controller conflated the inventive step enquiry with Section 3(k).

The Appellant also pointed out the grants of corresponding patent applications in other jurisdictions. 

The Bombay High Court held that the impugned order suffered from significant legal deficiencies warranting interference.

• Non‑application of the Roche five‑step test for inventive step: The Court noted a total absence of structured reasoning. The Controller neither identified the inventive concept nor compared the claimed features with the prior art or explained how a person skilled in the art would derive the invention from the cited prior art documents. This rendered the order unsustainable.
• Introduction of new exclusion under Section 3(k): The Court found that the finding in the impugned order was beyond the scope of the hearing notice. Since applicants must have the opportunity to rebut objections, the introduction of new reasoning constituted breach of natural justice.
• Section 3(k) issues could not cure earlier defects: Even assuming the Section 3(k) objections had merit, they could not validate an otherwise flawed order.

In view of the foregoing, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.