Raytheon Company v Controller of Patents and Designs (1974)

Summary

“This is an appeal to the High Court under the Patents Act, 1970. The order challenged in this appeal is regarding the application for Patent No. 133687 filed on November 19, 1971, by Raytheon company” (para 1). “The application related to Patent in respect of what is called ‘Imaging System’.” (para 1) “The Central Government, it further appears, has expressed an opinion that the invention which was the subject-matter of the application related to an invention which was useful for or related to the production of, control, use or disposal, of atomic energy and therefore patent could not be granted.” (para 1) Its communication read: “As the invention falls under Section 20(1) of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (Act 33 of 1962), it is NOT repeat NOT patentable.” (para 2) “The aforesaid order and/or communication of the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs dated July 19, 1972 is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.” (para 2)

The Court held that “in substance and for all practical purposes that was the direction” (para 4), that “whether the opinion of the Central Government under Section 20(1) of the Atomic Energy Act was properly formed or not cannot, in my opinion, be the subject-matter of a collateral challenge in an appeal under the Patents Act, 1970” (para 4), and that “Section 65 of the Act cannot, in my opinion, have any application to the facts of this case” (para 5). “In the aforesaid view of the matter this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.” (para 6)

What the court decided

1. A direction in substance. “The Central Government in unequivocal terms has expressed the opinion that he invention was not patentable. It is true that the Central Government did not specifically add that the Controller or the Deputy Controller was not to grant the patent but, in my opinion, in substance and for all practical purposes that was the direction. Therefore, I must accept the position that there was a direction as contemplated in Sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.” (para 4)
2. No collateral challenge in appeal. “So far as the contention that there was non-application of mind by the Central Government is concerned I am of the view that that contention is not open in this appeal. That contention is not open for two reasons firstly, in view of Sub-section (1) of Section 116 of the Patents Act, 1970, and secondly, whether the opinion of the Central Government under Section 20(1) of the Atomic Energy Act was properly formed or not cannot, in my opinion, be the subject-matter of a collateral challenge in an appeal under the Patents Act, 1970.” (para 4)
3. The Controller bound by the direction. “So long as the direction under Sub-section (6) stands, so far as the Controller of Patents and Designs is concerned he is bound to follow it and so far as the validity of that direction is concerned that is beyond challenge in an appeal under the Patents Act” (para 4). “If the appellant is aggrieved by such direction or opinion or communication of the Central Government it is for the appellant to take such steps as he is entitled in law to challenge the propriety or the validity of the opinion or direction of the Central Government but this does not come within the purview of an appeal under the Patents Act, 1970.” (para 4)
4. Section 65 before acceptance. “Section 65 of the Act cannot, in my opinion, have any application to the facts of this case. Section 65 is in Chapter XII of the Act dealing with surrender and revocation of Patents. Section 65 deals with the cases subsequent to the acceptance of the complete specification in accordance with Section 22 of the Act. That is not the case here.” (para 5)
5. Reference without a hearing. Of the contention “that the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs was in error in referring the matter to the Central Government for its opinion or direction without giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard or of making submission in respect thereto” (para 5), the Court held: “I am unable to accept this contention.” “Section 80 when it speaks of the exercise of discretion it means the cases where the Controller or the Deputy Controller in exercise of his powers acts--but in cases where these authorities act or are obliged at the direction of the Central Government no question of exercise of discretion by the Controller arises.” “Furthermore, in any event if there has been an opinion expressed by the Central Government this point is no loneer open be-cause whether the reference was bad or properly or improperly made if there has been any direction given by the Central Government so far as the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs is concerned he is concluded by the said opinion or direction.” (para 5)
6. Disposition. “In the aforesaid view of the matter this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.” (para 6) “There will, however, be no order as to costs.” (paras 6–7)

What the court did not decide

Of the respondents’ preliminary objection “that the appeal was not in proper form” (para 2), the Court said: “Though there is good deal of substance in this submission made on behalf of the respondents, in the view I have taken of this appeal, I do not think it is necessary for me to express any opinion on this preliminary objection.” (para 2)

Subsequent treatment

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