OIPD-10 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE (Intellectual Property Rights Division) IPDPTA/54/2023 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (OA /7/2021/PT/KOL) VS THE ASST. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR Date : 19th March, 2025. Appearance: Ms. Vrindya S. Mani, Adv. Mr. Shovit Betyal, Adv. Ms. Diya Mal, Adv. …for the appellant The Court: This appeal is filed under Section 117A of the Patent Act, 1970 challenging an order dated 21 November, 2020 passed by the respondent rejecting patent application no. 201841012166 dated 15 July, 2018. Briefly, the subject invention discloses apparatuses and methods for quantifying an average concentration of a component in a sample fluid. The apparatus comprises of a microfluidic device, a suction unit, a reservoir, and an imaging unit. The microfluidic device comprises a sample inlet port for inlet of the sample fluid comprising the component to be estimated and a marker ingredient, a carrier inlet port for inlet of a carrier fluid, an outlet port for outlet of compartments of the sample fluid interspersed with the carrier fluid, and a first connection. The first connection is formed at an intersection of a carrier phase microchannel and a supplier microchannel. The carrier phase microchannel is to carry the carrier fluid from the carrier inlet port to the first connection and the supplier microchannel is to supply the 2 sample fluid to the first connection. The sample fluid is partitioned into the compartments interspersed with the carrier fluid at the first connection. The compartments have varying concentrations of the component and corresponding concentrations of the marker ingredient. A downstream microchannel extends from the first connection to the outlet port to allow outflow of the compartments. The suction unit is coupled to the outlet port of the microfluidic device to provide a suction force to draw the sample fluid and the carrier fluid from respective inlet ports through the first connection to form the compartments and to draw the compartments out from the outlet port. The suction unit is controllable to apply the suction force based on a function of the capillary number of the downstream microchannel and resistance of the carrier, supplier, and downstream microchannels to form the compartments of substantially equal size. The reservoir is to collect the compartments of the sample fluid. The imaging unit is to quantify the concentration of the component in the sample fluid and comprises a stage to receive the reservoir, an image capturing device to capture an imagine of the compartments in the reservoir and a processor to process the image to determine the concentration of the component. For this, the processor is to determine, from the image, a distribution of compartments that include the component above a threshold level and a parameter of the marker ingredient in each compartment, ascertain a dilution factor of the sample fluid for each compartment based on the parameter of the marker ingredient, obtain estimates of concentration of the 3 component in the sample fluid from each compartment based on distribution of compartment and the dilution factor and quantify the average concentration of the component in the sample fluid based on averaging the estimates of concentration. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. There are no reasons in the impugned order. The impugned order does not deal with the subject invention nor does it provide any reason as to why the subject patent application has been rejected on the ground of section 2(1)(ja) of the Act. There has been no discussion of any of the alleged prior arts in the impugned order. The impugned order simply reproduces the Notes of Submissions filed by the appellant. There is no independent application of mind by the respondent in passing the impugned order. There is also no element of why in the impugned order on the basis of which the conclusion has been arrived at as to why the subject patent application lacked inventive steps under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act. There is also no discussion of the alleged prior arts D1 to D3. In an unreported decision in AID 17 of 2022, Toyo Engineering Corporation vs. The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Mark GPDTM & Anr. this Court had held as follows:- “Orders of such nature need to meet the twin tests of "why" and "what". It is the "why" which sustains the "what". Reasons are the safeguard against the ipsi dixit of the decision-making process. They discuss how the mind has been applied to the matter in issue and convey the nexus between the matters which have been considered and the conclusion based thereon. The justification and the reasonableness of a conclusion can only depend on the reasons given in support thereof. The order 4 impugned has no element of "why" for the "what" therein to stand on (Uniworth Resorts Limited and Ajay Prkash Lohia Versus Ashok Mittal & Ors. reported in (2008) 1 CalLT 1).” The impugned order has been passed without any application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Mere reproduction of the Note on Submissions does not indicate an independent application of mind. The respondent has also failed to determine the lack of inventive steps in terms of the mandate of the Act. There is simply no discussion on this aspect of the matter. There are no reasons in the impugned order. In view of the above, the impugned order is unsustainable and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Controller to be heard within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order and after giving a right of hearing to the parties. It is made clear that there has been no adjudication on the merits of the case and all issues are left open to be decided in accordance with law. In view of the above, IPDPTA/54/2023 stands disposed of. (RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.) S.Bag