Altered Workshop Adjustments Don't Automatically Equate to Shallow Innovations
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has set aside an impugned order dated 12 August 2021 and directed that the patent for the 'Notched Fastener' invention shall proceed for grant in the matter of Avery Dennison Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs.
The Hon'ble Court's decision provides a helpful benchmark for assessing non-obviousness or inventive step, a crucial factor in patent approval. The Court concluded that the claimed features are clearly different and that the subject invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the art.
The invention in question, filed almost 18 years after the closest prior art, offers a simple yet impactful improvement to existing fasteners. The Hon'ble Court observed that the advantages of the subject invention are logically decipherable while one understands the invention.
The Hon'ble Court held that simplicity does not defeat an invention, even simple inventions are patentable. This decision alludes to the belief of Nobel Prize laureate Sir William Golding that the greatest ideas are the simplest.
The learned Counsel for the appellant described the technical advancement of the claimed invention over the closest prior art. Conversely, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the claimed invention was 'superficial' and a mere workshop improvement over the closest prior art.
The Hon'ble Court, in its ruling, held that any variation or modification in the closest prior art is not tenable. The Court also observed that if the invention was so obvious, any third party could have made the changes in the prior art to arrive at the subject invention, but this has not happened.
The search results do not contain information about the inventor of the 'Notched Fastener' invention. However, it is worth noting that patents have been granted in other major jurisdictions including the USA, Japan, South Korea, and China for the subject invention.
The Hon'ble Court's observations should encourage innovators to invent simple yet impactful improvements to existing products and seek protection for the same. Patent practitioners would do well to advise inventors seeking protection for simple improvements to include a clearly decipherable technical advantage of their invention over the closest prior art in the complete specification.
The Hon'ble Court also referenced historical cases such as Vickers v. Siddell (1890) 7 R.P.C. 292 and Pope Appliance Corp. v. Spanish River Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd, (1929) 46 R.P.C. 23 to clarify that simplicity in the invention should not deter the Court from granting a patent.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's decision in the Avery Dennison Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs case serves as a reminder that simple, yet significant improvements to existing technology can be protected by patents, provided they offer a clear technical advantage over the closest prior art.
Read also:
- Transitioning to Electric Vehicles Places Heavy Demand on Power Grids
- E-mobility continues its progress after a decade since the scandal, staying on course
- The Commission deems the assistance program to be in agreement with the domestic market regulations.
- Innovative Garments and Accessories Producing Energy: Exploring Unconventional Sources for Renewable Power
