In Fertin Pharma A/S vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 25/2023, decision dated February 18, 2026], the Delhi High Court once again underscored that orders refusing patent applications must be reasoned, coherent and confined to the objections communicated to the applicant.

The appeal challenged the refusal of patent application number 202017042442. The First Examination Report (FER) raised objections relating to lack of novelty and inventive step, insufficiency of disclosure, non-patentability under Sections 3(d), 3(e) and 3(i), along with certain formal objections. However, the objections in the hearing notice were confined to only lack of novelty and insufficiency of disclosure.

The Court found that the impugned order departed from the issues identified in the hearing notice. Although the order purported to reject the application on the ground of lack of novelty, its analysis relied on assertions that the claimed invention was “obvious” in light of the cited prior art, thereby invoking inventive step without clearly identifying it as the basis of refusal.

The Court further observed that even if the Controller had intended to reject the application for lack of inventive step instead of lack of novelty, the order failed to provide any analysis or reasoning to justify the conclusion under Section 2(1)(ja). Merely referring to the cited prior art and arriving at a conclusion was held to be insufficient.

The Court observed that such a cryptic analysis falls short of the obligations cast upon the Controller by the Patents Act. As a quasi-judicial authority, the Controller is required to provide clear reasons explaining why the claims are being refused. The Court emphasised that reasons are the “bedrock” of judicial and quasi-judicial orders, enabling applicants to understand the basis of rejection and effectively challenge the decision in appeal if required. In the absence of such reasons, an aggrieved party would have no basis to formulate the grounds of appeal.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the patent application be reconsidered de novo by a different Controller.