Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries
Rule established
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
- What constitutes an inventive step for a valid patent
- 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.
How to use it in an exam
- 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
Source
Source: AIR Online
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.
Cited in study notes
LawPatents Concept and Historical OverviewWorkshop improvement obvious to person skilled in art lacks inventive step; rout
LawPatentable Inventions and ExclusionsWorkshop improvement obvious to person skilled in art lacks inventive step; rout