PatentsInventive stepSupreme Court of India

Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v Hindustan Metal Industries

AIR 1979 Supreme Court 144419791 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Respondent held a patent for a brass pitcher with a specific shape and process. Appellant manufactured similar pitchers and was sued for infringement. Appellant challenged validity on grounds of lack of inventive step.
Issue
What constitutes an inventive step for a valid patent
Held
A patent must disclose something not obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Principle
Workshop improvement obvious to person skilled in art lacks inventive step; routine trade variation not patentable

Facts

  • Respondent held a patent for a brass pitcher with a specific shape and process
  • Appellant manufactured similar pitchers and was sued for infringement
  • Appellant challenged validity on grounds of lack of inventive step
  • Evidence showed similar pitchers were manufactured by craftsmen before the patent date
  • Expert evidence was led on obviousness

Issues

  1. What constitutes an inventive step for a valid patent
  2. Whether a workshop improvement satisfies the inventive step requirement

Held

  • A patent must disclose something not obvious to a person skilled in the art
  • A workshop improvement (routine variation by a skilled craftsman) is not patentable
  • Patent revoked for want of subject matter
  • Test: would a skilled person, knowing the prior art, consider the step obvious?

Ratio decidendi

The inventive step is the dividing line between invention and craftsmanship. Prior art includes all publicly available knowledge. If the variation is what any competent worker would produce routinely, there is no invention.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Definitive Indian authority on inventive step and obviousness
  • Cite in patent questions on novelty, subject matter, and revocation
  • Pair with Novartis (2013) for the pharmaceutical S.3(d) threshold

Cite this

Citation

Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1444

Reported: AIR Online. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.