Certain inventions as declared expressly as ineligible for patent protection under various patent laws the world over. The Indian enactment has similar bars imposed too on certain inventions.
The exclusions in India encompass inventions that are: (i) frivolous; (ii) contrary to public order or morality; and, (iii) harmful to public health or the environment. Other non-patentable inventions include, algorithms, abstract ideas, artistic/literary works, atomic-energy-related inventions, business methods, mathematical methods, medical treatment methods, plants & animals (except microorganisms), pure software, scientific principles, traditional knowledge, etc.
Section 3(f) of the Patents Act, 1970 states as follows:
"3. What are not inventions.—The following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act,—
(a) …
...
(f) the mere arrangement or re-arrangement or duplication of known devices each functioning independently of one another in a known way;
..."
The restriction under the aforesaid provision extends to inventions that merely arrange, rearrange, or duplicate ‘known devices’, with each such device functioning independently in a known way; and, without the ‘known-devices’ resulting in new products or at least one new element. It is rather commonsensical that the term “known devices” pertains to devices that already exist in prior art.
This exclusion prevents patents for innovations that lack inventive step or technical advancement, such as simply connecting known devices without a novel synergistic effect. It plays a vital role in ascertaining the patentability of inventions that entail multiple elements, components or sub-systems.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary (2014,p.130)[1], the term “arrangement” has the contextually-relevant connotations of: (a) the putting things into proper order; disposition of things in a harmonious or suitable form; (b) the mode or system, in which parts or elements have been put or disposed in accordance with some plan or design; and, (c) the way in which something is organized.
Extrapolating the definition, ‘re-arrangement’ would imply the simple altering, reorganizing or modifying the way, plan, form, mode, order or design of the arrangement of parts, things, elements in another invention that exists in prior art.
The words ‘duplicate’ and ‘duplication’ are respectively defined in P Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon (2024, pp.2042-2043)[2] as “the act, process or result of duplicating” and “copy of the original”.
This provision is particularly relevant to inventions that combine two or more devices into one unit (that is, device, gadget, system or apparatus) that affords multiple functionalities thereto, with no novel integration, interaction or interdependence among the individual, constituent devices. For instance, a “2-in-1 boombox”, which combines a transistor radio with a tape recorder may not qualify for patent protection under this provision.
It is obvious that the Section 3(f) intends to prohibit the unimaginative copying, merging, integrating, reworking, rearranging or re-organising of inventions disclosed in prior art.
Thus, the provision prevents the granting of patents for inventions that are obvious and do not meet the threshold of innovation. The section purports to discourage trivial alterations and flimsy innovations that restrict economic activity and create monopolies. The intent is only to nurture genuine creativity and to foster real advancement in technology.
An inventor of agritech solutions, approached Blaze Ventures for professional services during the pre-grant prosecution of their invention entailing a ‘Vertical Farming System’ design.
.jpg)
The Controller, who examined the application at the Patent Office, had concluded in the Evaluation Report that the invention was non-patentable under Section 3(f) of the Patents Act, 1970.
In the response that we drafted, it was highlighted that no traditional teaching, suggestion or motivation for holistic implementation of vertical farming exists in prior art. Further, it was pointed out that the invention provides a long-term solution to the recognized challenges of ‘yield’ and ‘return on investment (ROI)’ in farming.
Further, we contended that the design disclosed offers a technical advancement by saving cost and enhancing cultivable space per unit area, which is economically significant when compared to the prevalent practices in prior art. It was argued that the invention provides long-term a solution to the recognized problems of: (a) food shortages; (b) inadequate agricultural income for marginal farmers; and, (c) agrarian distress, in general.
Our submissions were pinned on the was that the disclosure was novel, useful, original and entailed a distinct, non-obvious, inventive step. Hence, we contended that the invention was patentable.
For arguments, we relied on the decisions of:(a) the Hon’ble Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in Enercon(India) Ltd., Daman Vs. Aloys Wobben, Germany[3];and, (b) the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs[4].
The Patent Office accepted the submissions and granted the patent.
Section 3(f) is a vital filter in the patenting system of India; the provision ensures that only those inventions which demonstrate true innovativeness receive protection. As technology evolves and devices purposed for multiple uses are designed and developed, compliance with this section becomes critical for securing patents.
For patent applicants, a good appreciation for Section 3(f) is desirable; the insight will ensure inventions do not get categorised as mere arrangements or duplications. Hence, it is advisable for inventors to seek patent protection for multi-device inventions that:
In summary, innovators must carefully navigate the checks and challenges in the Patent Act, 1970, particularly, Section 3(f) to avoid the pitfall of non-patentability for their inventions.
At BLAZE VENTURES, we have elaborate processes and qualified professionals for helping innovators and enterprises circumvent the non-patentability criteria in Section 3(f)for their ideas, innovations and inventions.
______________
[1]Garner, Bryan A. (Ed.-in-Chief). (2014). Black’s Law Dictionary (10thEd.). West Publishing Co.
[2]Aiyar, P Ramanatha. (2024). Advanced Law Lexicon: The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary with Words & Phrases, Legal Maxims and Latin Terms (7thEd.). Lexis Nexis
[3] (2013) IPAB 87
[4] (2023) SCC OnLine Del 386
