Delhi High Court Revives Inventor's Patent Application For Mechanical Folding Device
Ayushi Shukla
30 Dec 2025 2:35 PM IST
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Patent Office order refusing a patent application filed by inventor Resham Priyadarshini for an invention titled “A Device For Folding Or Bending An Article”.
The court held that the rejection was based on an incomplete reading of the application and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
In a judgment dated December 24, 2025, a single-judge Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the Patent Office wrongly concluded that the claims were unclear and that the invention lacked an inventive step, without properly examining the dependent claims, drawings and the detailed specification.
The case relates to a patent application filed in March 2020. The invention concerns a mechanical device that folds or bends an article during processing.
The device uses an input conveyor to bring the article in. A moving member transfers it onto a platform. The platform folds or bends the article. An output mechanism then carries the finished article out.
The Patent Office refused the application in February 2023. It said the main claim did not clearly define the input conveyor and output mechanism. It also held that the invention showed no technical advancement over prior art.
The High Court disagreed. It said the claims were not read as a whole. While the independent claim used general terms, the dependent claims clearly defined the features. The court noted that the drawings and detailed descriptions added further clarity.
“The aforesaid drawings of the Complete Specification of the Subject Patent Application, when read with the relevant paragraphs of the Complete Specification, provide further clarity on the technical features of the input conveyor mechanism (300) and the output mechanism (600),” It said.
On the issue of inventive step, the court found the refusal order to be contradictory. It noted that the Patent Office claimed it could not assess inventive step due to lack of clarity, while simultaneously comparing it with prior arts and concluding that the invention lacked technical advancement.
Holding that the Patent Office's conclusion on lack of inventive step could not be sustained, the Court observed, “If the technical features of the claimed invention were unclear to the Controller, this Court fails to appreciate on what basis the Controller compared the technical features of the claimed invention to the prior arts.”
The court held that the scope of the invention was clear from the claims, dependent claims, and drawings. It ruled that the finding on lack of inventive step was “unreasoned and abrupt.”
The refusal order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.
Case Title: Resham Priyadarshini v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 9/2025
For Appellant: Advocates Rajeshwari H., Garima Joshi and Swami Chothe
For Respondents: SPC Kangan Roda with Advocate Tanishq Sharma