Calcutta High Court: Patent Decisions Must Be Based on Scientific Proof, Not Morality Alone.

26 May, 2025

The Calcutta High Court, in a significant judgment, addressed the delicate balance between morality, public health, and the scope of patent law in India. The case involved a rejected patent application filed by ITC Limited for a “heater assembly to generate aerosol.” The Controller of Patents had previously denied the patent under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, stating that the invention was against public morality and potentially harmful to health.

Section 3(b) of the Patents Act excludes inventions from patentability if they are “contrary to public order or morality or which cause serious prejudice to human, animal or plant life or health or to the environment.” Relying on this provision, the Controller concluded that the heater assembly could fall within the purview of tobacco-related devices, and given the health risks associated with smoking and vaping, it could not be granted a patent.

However, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur of the Calcutta High Court disagreed with the Controller’s decision-making approach. The court held that invoking Section 3(b) requires objective and scientific evidence, not merely subjective opinions about morality or health concerns. Justice Kapur noted that the Controller failed to provide any credible or technical data to substantiate the rejection. Instead, the decision seemed to rest on general concerns and assumptions, especially related to the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019 (PECA).

The High Court made an important distinction: PECA governs the manufacture, sale, and distribution of e-cigarettes, but it does not regulate the grant of patents. The Controller’s reliance on this law to deny the patent was, according to the court, misplaced. Patentability should be evaluated based on the invention’s technical merits and compliance with the Patents Act—not on the potential commercial uses that might be regulated under other statutes.

Further, the court observed that the patent application made no explicit mention of tobacco or nicotine. Therefore, there was no factual basis to conclude that the invention necessarily related to tobacco use or promoted smoking. The assumption that it might be used in e-cigarettes was speculative and not a valid ground for invoking Section 3(b).

Justice Kapur also emphasized that patent offices must avoid moral policing unless there is concrete legal or scientific backing for such a stance. He cautioned against using morality or public interest as a tool to reject innovations without adequate reasoning, as it sets a problematic precedent and potentially stifles innovation.

In conclusion, the court quashed the rejection order and directed the Controller to re-examine ITC’s application in accordance with the law. A fresh hearing must be held, and a decision must be reached within three months. The court stressed that any future decision should be based strictly on legal grounds and supported by relevant technical or scientific data.

ITC Limited v. Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark