Reasoned Orders

1In Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B.V. v Controller of Patents and Designs (2023) the Calcutta High Court held that “Reasons are the foundation of any order passed by any judicial or quasi judicial authority. The main objective of providing reasons in any order is to provide clarity to the reader and to understand how and why and how the matter has been proceeded and dealt with by the Authority” (para 11).

2In Decco the Court held that “In passing the impugned order the Controller has failed to explain why the subject patent application falls within the category of ‘agriculture’. In fact, no reasons have been given by the Controller as to why a method of treatment of plants to treat fungal diseases would fall within section 3(h) which covers traditional methods of agriculture.” (para 11) It held that “the finding that the subject invention falls within the definition of ‘agriculture’ does not deal with the submissions of the appellants” and that the numerous inventions relied on by the appellants “have been totally ignored in the impugned order” (para 11).

3In Dimminaco v Controller of Patents and Designs (2002) the Calcutta High Court held that “It appears that while giving his report, the said Examiner has to act in a quasi-judicial manner and it is well settled as a proposition of law that when an authority, acting in a quasi-judicial manner, passes an order which affects the right of the parties such order should be a reasoned order.” On the report before it the Court found that “the main finding of the said Examiner is that the claimed specification does not constitute an invention. The reason for such finding has not been given.” (p 260)

4In Yahoo v Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (2011) the Intellectual Property Appellate Board held that any finding which is not based on reason cannot be accepted and will be set aside. (para 16)