The decision in Grains Research and Development Corporation vs The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 66/2024; decision dated February 23, 2026] reinforces that the assessment of inventive step must conform to the sequential framework laid down in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. vs Cipla Ltd., while objections under Section 3(d) must be supported by an independent analysis identifying the known process, known efficacy or new form of the known substance, and explaining why the statutory requirements are attracted.

The appeal challenged the refusal of patent application number 201617030967, relating to a method of controlling insects in stored food using effective amount of food-grade synthetic amorphous silica. The invention also related to solid insecticide formulation comprising an effective amount of synthetic amorphous silica. The application was refused on the grounds of lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d).

According to the applicant, the invention addressed the shortcomings of conventional insecticides used in stored grains, which often suffer from toxicity concerns, limited range of targets, insect resistance, and the need for specific weather conditions, high application doses or treatment to remove the insecticide before food is safe for consumption. The claimed invention sought to provide prolonged insect control using comparatively low doses of food-grade synthetic amorphous silica suitable for suitable for direct consumption without requiring treatment.

The Appellant argued that the impugned order was largely a compilation of the prosecution history and summaries of the cited prior art documents without any independent reasoning. It was contended that the Controller had failed to examine the applicant’s detailed submissions explaining why each prior art document did not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features. The appellant further submitted that the Controller had repeatedly introduced fresh objections and prior art during prosecution, failed to properly analyse the applicability of Section 3(d), given that the claimed method involved a novel component/reactant i.e., a food-grade synthetic amorphous silica having a specified particle size, effective surface area, purity, and extended insect control achieved by the invention. The impugned order was also challenged on the ground that the grant of corresponding patents in several foreign jurisdictions was ignored, despite judicial precedents recognising such grants as a relevant persuasive factor.

Accepting these submissions, the Court observed that although the Controller had attempted to identify the person skilled in the art (PSITA), the remaining steps of the Roche test had not been undertaken. The Controller neither compared the claimed invention with the cited prior art on a claim-by-claim basis nor identified the distinguishing technical features before concluding that the invention lacked inventive step. The Court reiterated that the Roche framework must be followed sequentially while assessing inventive step and that merely reproducing prior art disclosures without explaining why the claimed invention would have been obvious to a PSITA is insufficient.

The Court also found that the Controller had failed to engage with the applicant’s technical submissions explaining why the cited prior art neither disclosed nor motivated the claimed invention. In particular, the order did not analyse the applicant’s contention that the claimed formulation achieved sustained insect control for at least 45 days at comparatively low dosages. The refusal merely proceeded on the broad premise that silica-based insect control was commonly and generally known to a PSITA, in absence of any scientific reasoning that the physical characteristic and dosage of synthetic amorphous silica leading to 100% mortality rate for 45 days was equivalent to using a higher dose of silica. The Court held that such an approach fell short of the analytical exercise required while assessing inventive step.

With respect to Section 3(d), the Court observed that the impugned order contained no mention of how and which part of the claims qualified as a “known process” and did not indicate the known efficacy or new form of the known substance in arriving at the conclusion of non-patentability. The Controller also failed to consider the applicant’s submission that the claimed invention employed a food-grade synthetic amorphous silica possessing specific characteristics which, according to the applicant, constituted a novel reactant falling outside the scope of the exclusion. The Controller merely provided the same observation as in the context of the objection of lack of inventive step. Therefore, the Court held that the objection under Section 3(d) could not be sustained.

The Court also reiterated that while foreign grants are not determinative of patentability in India, they remain a relevant persuasive factor that ought to be considered, especially where the corresponding applications have overcome novelty and inventive step objections in multiple jurisdictions. This assumed greater significance in the present case since the Controller had themselves acknowledged the novelty and industrial applicability of the claimed invention, yet failed to give due credence to the foreign grants.

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter to the Controller for a fresh determination.