Delhi High Court Sets Aside Patent Office Order Rejecting Emitec Emissions Dosing Device

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Patent Office order rejecting a patent application filed by Emitec Gesellschaft für Emissionstechnologie mbH, a Germany-based automotive emissions firm, for a reducing-agent dosing device that helps cut vehicle pollution.

A single-judge bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in a judgment pronounced on December 24, 2025, held that the Patent Office rejected the application without following the mandatory five-step test for examining inventive step laid down as mandated in Cipla Ltd. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

The court said this test must be applied either expressly or in substance.

The patent application is titled “Tank Assembly and Metering System for a Reducing Agent.” The device is designed to supply a liquid chemical into vehicle exhaust systems to reduce harmful emissions. It uses a tank with a separate chamber at the bottom that houses a dosing unit and pump for controlled delivery. Emitec first filed the application internationally in September 2010 and entered the Indian national phase in 2012.

After examining the application, the Patent Office rejected it in March 2022, holding that the claimed invention was obvious in view of earlier technologies and lacked inventive step under the Patents Act. Emitec challenged this decision before the High Court.

Before the court, Emitec argued that the Patent Office had skipped basic procedural steps. It said the refusal order did not identify the person skilled in the art, did not clearly explain the inventive concept, and did not spell out the technical problem the device was meant to solve. The Patent Office defended its order, saying similar features were already disclosed in prior art and that the changes claimed were routine design variations.

The High Court agreed with Emitec and said the refusal order jumped straight to comparing the claims with prior art without laying the necessary groundwork.

“The failure of the impugned order to identify the person skilled in the art in whose perspective the inventive step is to be assessed clearly fails to depict the threshold of inventive step, by illustrating whether the invention claimed in the Subject Patent Application is obvious for the person skilled in the art possessing the common general knowledge in terms of prior arts D1–D6. The impugned order fails to address these essential questions,” the court said.

The court set aside the Patent Office order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It directed that Emitec be given a new hearing and that the patent application be decided again in accordance with law, preferably within three months.