The Madras High Court has directed the Indian Patent Office to allow an inventor to demonstrate his invention, despite the earlier rejection of his patent application. The Court underlined that innovative ideas should not be dismissed solely on theoretical assumptions when a working model is available for evaluation.
The case arose from a patent application filed by Kannan Gopalakrishnan, who claimed to have developed a device capable of generating power through a combination of solar energy, gravity, and buoyancy. According to the inventor, the system could continue producing electricity even in the absence of sunlight. However, the Patent Office rejected the application, holding that the invention appeared to violate established scientific principles and resembled a perpetual motion mechanism.
The rejection was issued under Section 3(a) of the Patents Act, 1970, which excludes inventions that are considered frivolous or contrary to natural laws. Although the applicant subsequently sought a review and stated that he possessed a functional prototype, the Patent Office dismissed the review petition without granting him an opportunity to physically demonstrate the device.
Aggrieved by this decision, the inventor approached the Madras High Court, arguing that his right to a fair hearing had been compromised. He contended that a live demonstration would enable patent authorities to better understand the practical working of the invention, rather than relying solely on written descriptions and assumptions.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, while acknowledging that courts cannot act as scientific experts or re-assess technical merits, observed that the judiciary can intervene to ensure fairness in administrative processes. The Court noted that when an inventor claims to have a working prototype, denying an opportunity for demonstration may lead to potentially useful innovations being overlooked.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the inventor to present his prototype before the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs within a stipulated period. The Patent Office was instructed to observe the demonstration and thereafter reconsider the patent application objectively. The authorities were further directed to issue a detailed and reasoned decision within a specified timeframe.
This judgment sends a strong message on the importance of balancing scientific rigour with openness in patent administration. It reinforces the principle that while patent examiners must adhere to established scientific standards, innovators should also be given a meaningful chance to explain and demonstrate their inventions before they are conclusively rejected.
The post Madras High Court calls for fair evaluation of rejected patent through live demonstration appeared first on India Legal.