Novelty and inventiveness are fundamental prerequisites for patentability of inventions.
Novelty means the invention must be new—no identical disclosure should exist in the relevant prior art worldwide. If an idea has been publicly used, published, or sold before the patent application date, it loses novelty.
Inventiveness (or, inventive step), on the other hand, mandates that the invention must be non-obvious to a person skilled in the field based on existing knowledge. This ensures patents are granted only for genuine advances, not trivial modifications. Together, these criteria maintain the integrity of the patent ecosystem, encouraging innovation while preventing monopolies on existing or obvious technologies.
When we talk about the fundamentals of patent law in India, the Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries judgment of the Supreme Court is the cornerstone for defining what truly counts as a patentable invention. This judgment laid down clear principles for determining the existence of novelty and inventive step in an invention. Those tenets are the foundation for assessing patentability in India.
Hindustan Metal Industries had been granted a patent for an improvised pressure cooker lid mechanism. The invention was essentially a modification, of pre-existent lid designs, which was claimed to be more efficient and safer.
.jpg)
A competitor, Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam challenged the validity of the patent grant on the grounds that the so-called “invention” was neither new nor inventive, but a mere workshop improvement of existing designs.
The case revolved around the two key, factual questions of: (i) whether the pressure cooker lid mechanism was truly novel; and, (ii) whether it involved an inventive step that was a non-obvious modification for a skilled person in the field?
The Court ruled in favour of the petitioner, Bishwanath Prasad, holding the patent invalid. The inference was that the claimed invention was already anticipated in prior art and that it incorporated no true novelty. Further, the Court observed that a small or routine improvement, that is, a mere workshop improvement made by applying ordinary mechanical skill does not amount to a patentable invention.
Thus, the Court reiterated that an invention will be deemed patentable only if it demonstrates an inventive step. Further, to qualify for that standard, the invention must entail a feature that is non-obvious to a person skilled in the art.
The Supreme Court clearly set out that: (a) both novelty and inventive steps are vital ingredients of a patentable invention; both must be satisfied to justify the patent grant; (b) routine or obvious improvements do not qualify as inventions and patents cannot be granted therefor; and, (c) patent law aims to protect public domain by only rewarding true innovations, not incremental tweaks that anyone skilled in the field could make.
In essence, the Court drew a sharp line between genuine invention and minor or mundane tinkering. The notion that improvements or combinations must yield new results or articles to be considered patentable was reinforced. The Court asserted that merely collocating known devices without inventive faculty does not satisfy patentability requirements
This case is often the starting point in any discussion on patentability standards in India. It constitutes a binding precedent; and, is often cited in judgments, oppositions and revocations as an authority on what constitutes novelty and inventive step. Thus, it ensures that patents serve their true purpose: promoting real innovation.
The Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam case[2] remains a milestone in Indian IP jurisprudence. It has established that patents are not just about being “new” in form, but also about being non-obvious and inventive in substance.
Without this standard, patent law would risk becoming a tool for monopolizing trivial changes, rather than fostering real innovations and achieving true, substantive progress in science and technology. In other words, the judgment is the gold standard for eliminating frivolity in patents
At BLAZEVENTURES, we have elaborate processes and qualified professionals for validating the patentability of ideas, innovations and inventions.
____________________
[1] (1979) 2 SCC 511
[2] supra
