Indian law defines inventive step, in Section 2(1)(ja), as a feature involving “technical advance … or having economic significance or both” that is not obvious to a skilled person. That little phrase — “economic significance” — is one of the most under-used words in Indian patent practice. In Novozymes A/S v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs [CMA(PT) No. 19 of 2025], the Madras High Court reminded the Patent Office that it is not optional.
Stirrers out, injectors in
The application (no. 202047008467, “Ejector Equipped Fermenter”) concerned fermenters for culturing micro-organisms. The departure from conventional design was to replace mechanical stirrers with injectors (ejectors), which Novozymes said delivered concrete economic advantages: lower construction cost, reduced energy consumption in operation, and better scalability. The Controller refused for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) and as non-patentable under Sections 3(d) and 3(f).
Three findings, three gaps
The Madras High Court found the order deficient on each ground. On inventive step, the Controller had recorded Novozymes’s economic-significance submissions but never returned a finding on them — ignoring a statutorily relevant limb of Section 2(1)(ja). On obviousness, the order was conclusory: it did not explain why a person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the cited teachings to reach the claimed fermenter, with no five-step analysis of the kind required since F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla. On Section 3(d), the order did not even indicate which limb of the provision was being invoked. And the Section 3(f) finding — that the invention was a mere arrangement or re-arrangement of known devices — was offered without any supporting reasoning. The matter was remanded.
Why it matters
Two points make Novozymes worth flagging beyond the usual “unreasoned order, remand” genre. First, it puts economic significance back on the map. The Office overwhelmingly analyses inventive step through technical advance alone; Section 2(1)(ja) plainly offers a disjunctive route, and an invention whose contribution is cheaper construction, lower energy and better scalability squarely engages it. Applicants in mechanical and process fields should plead economic significance expressly — and, after Novozymes, can expect a reasoned response.
Second, the Section 3(f) point deserves attention. The line between an unpatentable “mere arrangement or re-arrangement” and a patentable combination is the same line the Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure and Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries have long drawn: a true combination produces a new or better result through the interworking of its parts, while a juxtaposition merely places known integers side by side. Replacing a stirrer with an injector and capturing system-level gains may well cross that line — but the Office has to engage with the question, not assert the answer. Reasoning, here as elsewhere, is not a formality; it is the decision.
Sources & further reading: Novozymes v. Assistant Controller; Section 2(1)(ja); Section 3(f); F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla; Biswanath Prasad v. Hindustan Metal.
Educational note: This case summary is general information, not legal advice.