Madras High Court Grants Inventor Opportunity To Demonstrate His Solar Power Device Before Patent Office

The Madras High Court has directed the Patent Office to grant an inventor one opportunity to demonstrate the working of his invention, holding that a potentially viable invention should not be rejected without adequate consideration.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025, while disposing of a writ petition filed by Kannan Gopalakrishnan challenging the rejection of his patent review application relating to an invention titled “Solar Supplemental Power Source.”

The invention is described as an electro-mechanical device intended to generate electricity even when solar energy is unavailable.The court noted that the petitioner was only seeking an opportunity to demonstrate his invention.

Observing this, it said, “This Court is inclined to grant one opportunity to petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner has applied his mind in inventing a product and sufficient opportunity is given to demonstrate such invention before the competent authority.”

According to the record, the patent application was filed on August 5, 2020.After examination and a hearing, the Patent Office rejected the application on November 7, 2024, holding that the claimed invention did not satisfy the requirements of Section 3(a) of the Patents Act, 1970, as it was considered frivolous or contrary to well-established natural laws.

The petitioner subsequently filed a review application under the provisions of the Patents Act and the Patents Rules. Along with the review, he submitted material indicating that a working model of the invention was available and could be demonstrated. However, the review application was dismissed by the Patent Office on June 16, 2025, without fixing a hearing.

Before the High Court, Gopalakrishnan contended that his review application was rejected without affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing or of demonstrating the working model.

The Patent Office opposed the petition, maintaining that adequate opportunities had already been afforded and that no grounds had been made out to justify a review.

After examining the record, the court observed that the original rejection order had already taken into account the nature of the invention and that no apparent error had been shown.

Nevertheless, taking note of the petitioner's assertion that a working model was available, the Court held that one final opportunity ought to be granted.

Accordingly, it directed Gopalakrishnan to make the model available for demonstration before the Patent Office, which shall thereafter consider the matter.