Huntington Alloys Corporation v Union of India (2026)

Summary

“The Petitioner, a Corporation incorporated under the laws of USA, is aggrieved by the order dated 18/11/2020 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and further order dated 06/04/2021 passed by the Department of Atomic Energy, thereby rejecting the Patent Application of the Petitioner dated 09/11/2010.” (para 2) “The Application was, therefore, referred to the Department of Atomic Energy under sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962” (para 3), and the order on that reference stated: “It is concluded that the above invention does relate to Atomic Energy and hence the application be refused.” (para 3) The petitioner submitted that “the invention revolves around an alloy which is suitable for a header pipe in boiler applications and invention titled as, ‘Ultra Supercritical Boiler Header Alloy and Method of Preparation’ in no way amount to release of atomic energy” (para 15).

The Court held that “Section 4 of the Act of 1970 clearly imposes an embargo in grant of patent in respect of an invention relating to atomic energy falling within sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act of 1962” (para 14), and that “when a person seek patent for his invention, according to us, he must be made aware of the reasons why his patent cannot be granted” (para 15). “In the wake of the aforesaid, since we find that in the case before us, the order refusing the Patent Application is sans any reason, the same cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.” (para 17) “With these directions, the Writ Petition is made absolute.” (para 18)

What the court decided

1. The statutory embargo. “The Central Government is vested with the power to inspect any pending patent application and specification and if it considers that the invention relates to atomic energy, it is competent to issue directions to the Controller of Patents and Designs to refuse the application on that ground.” (para 9) “In the light of the statutory scheme involving atomic energy, no patent can be granted and Section 4 of the Act of 1970 clearly imposes an embargo in grant of patent in respect of an invention relating to atomic energy falling within sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act of 1962.” (paras 9, 14)
2. Refusal after the 2005 amendment. “In the wake of the amendment in Section 65, according to Mr.Kadam, the power which is now available under the provision is restricted to revocation of the patent and the option of non-consideration of the application is not available. However, we do not find merit in the said contention” (para 12). “But, in no case, the provision can be construed to the effect that the patent application shall be granted first and then it shall be revoked, if it relate to atomic energy in the wake of the bar imposed under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act of 1962.” (para 12)
3. Amendment to avoid refusal. “Since the Application of the Petitioner has been kept pending since 2010, there is no question of its revocation, but on consideration of application, it is permissible for the Central Government to issue direction to the Controller to refuse to proceed the same, if it relates to atomic energy, but to save such an application from its non-consideration on the said ground, it is open for the patentee/applicant to amend the specification, so as to avoid its invention involving atomic energy, resulting into its complete rejection.” (para 13)
4. Obiter. The Act of 2025. Of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025, the Court recorded: “Under said enactment, the absolute embargo to consider grant of patent has been relaxed by making it permissible to encourage invention involving atomic energy for welfare purposes. However, we are informed that the said Act is not brought into force yet.” (para 14)
5. The applicant’s right to reasons. “Though in the reply affidavit it is faintly suggested that the invention involves release of atomic energy, we do not find any reasoning contained in the impugned order, as according to us, the Petitioner whose Application/Invention is rejected, is entitled to know the basis of rejection” and “if the reasons were furnished to the Petitioner, it was open for it to adopt the procedure under Section 65(2) of the Act of 1970 and the option of amending the specification was available to it.” (para 15) “However, in the wake of the impugned order, this opportunity is denied to the Petitioner and the Petitioner is not even communicated the reasons, why its Application is rejected.” (para 15)
6. Reasons and the Central Government’s power. “Though Mr.Singh has attempted to canvass before us that the power is specifically vested in the Central Government to refuse an patent application, if it involves atomic energy, in our view, we see no difficulty as to why the reasons cannot be disclosed.” “A process, which relates in release of atomic energy, is known to the experts with the Central Government, but when a person seek patent for his invention, according to us, he must be made aware of the reasons why his patent cannot be granted.” (para 15)
7. The Ceres order. Of Ceres Intellectual Property Company v Controller of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs (2022), the Court held: “We find support to our view by the order passed in Writ Petition No.2257 of 2018” and reproduced its finding that “There cannot be a manner of doubt that if the application of patent engulfs within its fold, the circumstances and/or inventions as detailed in Section 20(1) of the year 1962, the Authority has got powers to reject the patent application. However, the same is to be borne out from the reasons in the order.” (para 16)
8. Disposition. “In the wake of the aforesaid, since we find that in the case before us, the order refusing the Patent Application is sans any reason, the same cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. However, at the same time, on setting aside the order, we permit consideration of the Patent Application of the Petitioner alongwith the specification to be considered by the Respondent No.4, but by passing a reasoned order.” (para 17) “With these directions, the Writ Petition is made absolute.” (paras 17–18)

Subsequent treatment

No later judicial treatment and no further appeal traced as of 13 October 2026.