Deekshitha Sharmile

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia, in a judgment dated November 24, 2025, set aside a Patent Office order refusing a patent application for “air rich” yarn and fabric technology filed by a textile manufacturer and remanded the matter to a different Controller for fresh consideration within six months. The Court held that the refusal decision, which had treated the invention as lacking an inventive step, did not adequately analyse the claimed feature of pores being uniformly distributed throughout the yarn’s radial cross-section or explain how the cited prior art made the invention obvious under Indian patent law. Finding several deficiencies in the reasoning, the Court directed a fresh hearing and reassessment of the claims in accordance with law.

The appellant, a textile manufacturer, filed a patent application in 2010 titled “Air Rich Yarn and Fabric and its Method of Manufacturing.” The application was examined by the Patent Office, which issued a First Examination Report in 2018. The appellant responded and subsequently attended hearings in 2020, submitting written submissions.

Also Read: Appellate Court Can Grant Interim Relief Even After Suit Dismissal By Trial Court: Supreme Court Remits Status Quo Plea On Suit Property To District Court For Fresh Consideration

The Controller of Patents issued an order in January 2021 refusing the application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j). The appellant challenged this refusal before the High Court.

The appellant contended that the claimed invention related to yarns and fabrics with pores distributed homogeneously across the radial cross-section, resulting in improved absorbency and drying properties. It argued that none of the cited prior art references disclosed this feature. The appellant relied on corresponding patents granted in the US and Europe, and on technical publications to support its claim.

The respondent maintained that the prior art references disclosed similar processes and fibre blends, and that the appellant had not provided quantitative evidence of homogeneous pore distribution. The respondent argued that the claims were hypothetical and unsupported by experimental validation, and therefore lacked inventive step.

The Court first noted the nature of the invention, recording that “The claimed invention describes ‘air rich fabric’ and ‘air rich yarns’ having pores throughout the cross-section… In the claimed invention, the yarn has pores, and the pores are homogeneously distributed.”

It further recorded the stated object of the invention that “The summary of the specification states the object of the invention, which is to provide a method for manufacturing fabrics, that are highly wettable, easily dryable, quick absorbing and are thicker.”

While analysing the specification, the Court extracted the process step that “Further, giving one or more draw frame passages for achieving the blending homogeneity in radial direction is the ideal method of achieving through pores on the surface of the final yarn and making the porous yarn structure in final fabric because water soluble fibres are uniformly distributed in the structure of the yam.”

On the prior art, the Court found that “like D1, D2 also failed to disclose the homogeneous distribution of pores across the radial cross-section of the yarn, which is claimed under Claims 1 and 8 of the Subject Application.” It similarly noted that in D4 “there is no disclosure or suggestion of the yarn having pores distributed homogenously across a radial cross-section.”

Summarising the inventive contribution, the Court stated that “It is important to note that the claims of the presents invention result in a different outcome. It results in a yarn where the PVA and non-PVA base fibres are distributed homogenously across a yarn radial cross-section… the claimed invention provides a yarn structure that is neither taught nor achieved by any of the prior art references D1 to D4.”

On the requirement of an obviousness analysis, the Court recorded that “it becomes crucial to establish the obviousness clearly, as the common knowledge teaches away from the claimed invention.” It further held that “The Impugned Order is silent on how the cited references D1 to D4 provide teaching that would lead to select the weight of the water-soluble fibres as being between 8 % and 25% of the total weight of the blended yarn.”

As to the Controller’s reasoning, the Court observed that “The decision of the learned Controller that there are no special measures adopted to achieve uniform radial distribution of fibres in the yarn cross-section cannot be accepted without addressing the exemplary manufacturing parameters used by the Appellant.” It also held that “The argument of the Respondent that the description and drawing of the complete specification did not mention about the homogeneous distribution of pores across the radial cross-section of the yarn is incorrect, as the process under the complete specification does mention the same.”

Clarifying the true focus of the claim, the Court stated that “The Appellant’s claimed invention under the Subject Application is directed towards the homogenous distribution of pores between fibre and not towards the homogenous distribution of fibre.”

Also Read: Petitioner Cannot Be Rendered Completely Remediless: Delhi HC Allows Time-Barred Appeal Against Customs’ Gold Confiscation After Traveller Says He Acted On Wrong Legal Advice

Finally, the Court concluded that “the Impugned Order suffers from various infirmities that need to be addressed… The obviousness needs to be addressed in light of the documents placed on record,” and accordingly “the Impugned Order… is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the Respondent for fresh consideration.”

“The Respondent shall afford a fresh opportunity of hearing to the Appellant before deciding the Subject Application. The Respondent shall consider the auxiliary claims submitted by the Appellant before this Court and pass an appropriate order. The matter shall be decided by another Controller than who passed this Impugned Order. The learned Controller shall decide the matter on the merits in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court in the Order. The learned Controller shall reconsider the matter within a period of six months from the date.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Nitin Masilamani, Mr. Amritanshu Jha and Mr. Amit Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. A. Gupta, Advocates.

Case Title: Trident Limited versus Controller of Patents
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10343
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia