Invention must not go waste: Madras HC orders Patent Office to see demo of rejected application

Holding that an invention should not be allowed to “go waste” without being tested in practice, the Madras High Court has directed the Patent Office to permit an inventor to demonstrate a working prototype of his invention, even though the patent application had earlier been rejected as being contrary to well-established natural science laws [Kannan Gopalakrishnan Vs Controller of Patents].

Justice Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18 on a writ petition filed by Kannan Gopalakrishnan, who had challenged the rejection of his patent application titled “Solar Supplemental Power Source” and the dismissal of his review petition by the Patent Office.

The Court ordered Gopalakrishnan to have a prototype available for demonstration before the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs within four weeks from the receipt of the order copy. The Assistant Controller was ordered to allow the inventor to demonstrate his prototype and then decide on whether a patent could be given.

"This order is passed more on the ground of equity by exercising discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure that an invention made does not go waste and all possible opportunities are given to sustain such an invention," the Court added.

According to the order, the invention claimed to be a mechanical system capable of generating electricity even when sunlight is unavailable, by using a wheel-based structure fitted with multiple arms and weights.

The system was designed to rely on gravitational and buoyant forces to create an imbalance in the wheel, causing it to rotate continuously and drive an electrical generator.

The applicant/ inventor claimed that the device could function as a supplemental power source, operating independently of conventional solar input once set in motion.

After examination and a hearing, the Assistant Controller of Patents rejected the application on November 7, 2024, under Section 3(a) of the Patents Act, 1970. The authority concluded that the invention was frivolous and obviously went against to the well-established natural laws.

The Patent Office held that the invention, which relied solely on gravity and buoyancy to generate continuous power, appeared to be scientifically implausible, as such forces cannot produce net energy without external input.

The authority concluded that the claims were akin to a perpetual motion mechanism, which is inconsistent with settled scientific principles.

The inventor subsequently filed a review petition under Sections 77(1)(f) and 77(1)(g) of the Act read with the Patents Rules, asserting that a working prototype existed and could be demonstrated. Along with the review application, he submitted links to videos and access details for the prototype.

However, the review petition was dismissed on June 16, 2025, without fixing a fresh hearing.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that patent rights are valuable rights and that rejection of both the application and the review petition without giving him an opportunity to physically demonstrate the working of the device amounted to a denial of fair hearing.

The Patent Office argued that sufficient opportunities had already been given and that no error apparent on the face of the record was made out.

Justice Anand Venkatesh agreed that the scope of the Court's review powers in the matter was limited. The Court also noted that it was not able to find any error apparent on the face of the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents.

However, the Court took note of the petitioner’s specific plea that a physical prototype was available and that he was only seeking an opportunity to demonstrate his invention.

“In view of the same, this Court is inclined to grant one opportunity to petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner has applied his mind in inventing a product,” the Court said.

The Court directed the petitioner to make the prototype available for demonstration before the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs within four weeks. It further directed the Patent Office to permit the demonstration and to pass a reasoned decision on the patent application within four months thereafter.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Lavanya.

The respondents (Patent Office authorities) was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Gangadaran.

[Read Judgment]