By Jigyasa Pareek

The Bombay High Court, in Deepak Nitrite Limited vs Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs [COMM. MISC. PETITION NO. 107 OF 2025; decision dated July 6, 2026], underscored the duty of the Controller to issue a reasoned, speaking orders. The Court set aside an order by the Assistant Controller refusing patent application no. 202021019409, entitled “A Free-Flowing Food Grade Sodium Nitrite and Production Method Thereof”, and held that invoking bald assertions of “common general knowledge” without citing verifiable evidentiary sources is arbitrary and legally untenable. 

The claims in the subject application comprised product claims directed to food-grade sodium nitrite distinguished by its impurity profile, and process claims covering a multi-step process for producing free-flowing food-grade sodium nitrite. The application was refused on the ground that the claimed subject matter lacked inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja).

The Petitioner contended that the Controller had admitted in the impugned order that the claimed product had a distinct impurity profile compared to prior art. However, the application was refused on the basis that the claimed technical advancement constituted “common general knowledge”, for the reason that no chemical compound is 100% pure, without providing any reference, text, or source to support this assertion.

The process claims were rejected by isolating the filtration step and observing that such filtration was commonly performed in laboratories.

The Court found the approach adopted by the Controller flawed on both counts. In relation to the process claims, the Court noted that the invention had to be considered as a whole, particularly where the alleged inventive contribution lay in the synergistic combination and sequencing of multiple process steps. The Controller, however, had considered only an individual filtration step instead of analysing the integrated process as a unit. The Court further noted that the order did not contain any analysis for accessing inventive-step as laid down in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. vs Cipla Ltd.

The Court also held that it was wholly impermissible for the Controller to invoke the ground of common general knowledge without identifying and substantiating its source published prior to the priority date of the patent application. The Court remarked that reliance on undisclosed personal knowledge or ipse dixit without recording reasons violates the principles of natural justice. It deprives the applicant of the reasoning necessary to effectively challenge the refusal in appellate proceedings.

The Court accordingly set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.