Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Comforter System Patent, Orders Fresh Review

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela delivered the judgment on January 23, 2026, while allowing an appeal against a 2020 order by which the Patent Office had refused application on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act.

The court observed that, “the impugned order merely acknowledges the submissions made by the appellant in the reply dated 29.07.2020, thereby exhibiting a conspicuous failure to advert to the submissions canvassed in the reply dated 29.07.2020, which amounts to a denial of natural justice. It is, therefore, observed that the learned Controller's decision suffers from a patent infirmity, as also warranting interference by this Court, as it violates the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.”

The patent application, titled “A Comforter System Having an Application in Conjunction with a Supporter,” relates to a customizable therapeutic support system designed for use in hospitals, homes and vehicles. The invention seeks to address ailments such as back pain, cervical issues and posture-related problems by providing adjustable compartments aligned to different parts of the human body.

The application was filed in April 2018 and published in June 2018. After a First Examination Report was issued in January 2020, citing lack of novelty and inventive step based on prior art documents, replies were filed by the applicant. At the hearing stage, the Patent Office relied on additional prior art documents through hearing notices, following which the application was ultimately refused.

Before the High Court, the applicant submitted that the Patent Office had expanded the scope of objections by relying on new prior art at the hearing stage without properly considering the detailed technical responses filed by him thereafter.

The Patent Office defended the rejection, submitting that adequate opportunity of hearing had been granted and that the Controller, being a technical expert, had examined the invention in light of the cited prior art before concluding that the claims were obvious.

Disagreeing with these submissions, the Court held that the refusal order was vitiated by procedural lapses. It noted that while the First Examination Report relied on certain prior art documents, the hearing notices subsequently introduced additional prior art documents. Despite this, the detailed technical response filed by the applicant addressing those documents was neither discussed nor analyzed in the impugned order.

“In the absence of such consideration, it is unfathomable how the learned Controller could have concluded against the appellant,” the Court added.

Consequently, the Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter to the Patent Office for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

For Appellant: Advocates Deepshikha Malhotra & Dhavish Chitkara

For Respondent: CGSC Arunima Dwivedi with Advocates Priya Khurrana & Himanshi Singh