While sometimes less may be more, this is certainly not always the case. Madras High Court (MadHC)’s recent judgement is one example of this. A Single Bench of the MadHC, headed by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, delivered an intriguing judgment on February 27, 2025, in Navya Network Inc. v. The Controller of Patents & Designs (pdf). The case involved an appeal against the order dated March 13, 2023, which had dismissed Patent Application No. 951/CHENP/2013, which the MadHC upheld, however, by only analysing one objection and deeming the rest unnecessary to be evaluated once one objection has been found to hold water.

A brief into the case for more context: At the appellant’s request, the respondent issued a First Examination Report (FER) on November 21, 2019 (pdf), raising objections on multiple grounds, including lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, exclusion under Section 3(k), and lack of clarity and conciseness under Section 10(5) of the Patents Act, 1970. Ultimately, the Controller rejected the patent application on two main grounds: that it was not an invention under Section 3(k) and that it lacked an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja). But how the court has undertaken the analysis and upheld the Controller’s order for rejection of the patent is rather interesting.

What’s so Interesting about this Case?

Since the discontinuation of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), High Courts have taken centre stage in adjudicating patent appeals. Courts frequently remand cases to the Controller of Patents when rejection orders lack detailed reasoning (see here and here). The SB’s decision introduces an interesting procedural nuance, as it upheld the rejection solely on the basis of the inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) without addressing the objection under Section 3(k).

The rationale is given in paragraph 18, where the court observes: “Therefore, the claimed invention does not satisfy the requirements of Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. In view of the above, it becomes unnecessary to examine whether the claimed invention stands excluded from patent protection under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act.”

Okay, so Isn’t Saving Time Good? 

Well, this approach of “judicial economy” may seem efficient at first glance. Why examine multiple objections if one is sufficient to reject the application?

However, some interesting and valid procedural questions were raised by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, an Indian Patent Attorney, in this LinkedIn post (here). Firstly, he contends that if the Controller is required to justify every ground of rejection, the appellate court should also follow the same standard. This argument holds water since the courts have repeatedly emphasized that the non-consideration of all grounds while examining a patent application or its oppositions would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.

As late as 1932, Justice Panckridge, in Re: National Carbon Co, noted that Section 77 vests certain powers of a civil court in the Controller. While the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not apply to proceedings before the Controller, the principles underlying this Code, especially those related to natural justice, must still be observed. To quote a more recent instance, in Best Agrolife Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Anr. (2022) (pdf), the Delhi High Court noted how the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs dismissed the Petitioner’s pre-grant opposition and granted the patent to the Respondent without considering the contention under Section 3(d) at all. The Court allowed a writ petition against this decision, citing a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the non-consideration of all grounds. It is only fair that the same requirements apply to the court as well.

This rationale also connects to the second issue, i.e., unnecessary delays caused when cases are remanded for fresh adjudication on unaddressed objections if the issues on which the SB passed the order are reversed on further appeal.

In India, when a lower court addresses only certain issues in a case and leaves others unresolved, and upon appeal, the appellate court finds the decided issues to be unfounded or erroneous, the appellate court has two major options:

1. Remand the Case: The appellate court may send the case back to the lower court for further proceedings, instructing it to address the previously unresolved issues or conduct a new trial.
2. Decide on Remaining Issues Itself: Alternatively, if the appellate court has sufficient evidence and the matters are purely legal, it may choose to decide on the remaining issues itself to resolve the matter with minimal delay.

In Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors v. Nirmala Devi & Ors (2011), the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of addressing all issues in a suit to prevent prolonged litigation. Similarly, in Arvind Kumar Jaiswal (D) v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun (2023) (pdf), the Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that remanded a case to the trial court, observing that remand prolongs and delays litigation. Since remand is generally considered a non-priority, it becomes more efficient if all reasons for rejection are considered at once rather than leaving some issues unresolved.

Arguments also arise from the other side, highlighting that in remand cases, courts often set a timeline for the lower court or authority to deliver its decision. Wouldn’t such directions help address delays? Well, to some extent, yes. However, double work by the lower courts remains inevitable, and merely setting a deadline does not necessarily make the process faster compared to the alternative. Moreover, another issue to consider is that once a matter is remanded, there is often little to no judicial oversight of the reasons provided by the lower court or authority. As seen here and here, the absence of such checks can lead to some major fiascos.

While this may be a long-drawn parallel, even in international bodies, this method of judicial economy, in general, and especially when remand is not possible, hasn’t always yielded positive results. For instance, the World Trade Organization (WTO) panel relies on such a judicial economy while deciding disputes. The United States, in its ‘Report on the Appellate Body of the World Trade’ (pdf), explained why it imposed a stall on the establishment of the WTO Appellate Body (AB) by raising concerns over how the lack of remand authority forces parties to file a fresh dispute with the panel if the AB reverses a decision. Alternatively, if the countries don’t want to take the long route of raising a new dispute, and since remand is not allowed, the AB itself decides on the remaining issues. This involves deciding on even factual matters and not just legal ones, which is beyond its scope as an appellate body.

In toto, the judicial economy approach seems to cause more trouble in the long run, compromising diligence in orders for the sake of saving time. Given the volume of appeals in patent rejections, courts would be better off prioritizing quality over quantity to avoid double work and further delays.