--- title: "Bombay High Court Reinforces the Need for Reasoned Patent Examination and Restricts Reliance on Unsupported “Common General Knowledge”" date: 2026-08-11 author: "King Stubb & Kasiva" url: https://ksandk.com/newsletter/common-general-knowledge-patent-examination/ --- # Bombay High Court Reinforces the Need for Reasoned Patent Examination and Restricts Reliance on Unsupported “Common General Knowledge” Posted On - 11 August, 2026 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva In *Deepak Nitrite Limited v. The Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs*, the Bombay High Court set aside an order refusing a patent application for a free-flowing food-grade sodium nitrite product. The Court held that a patent application cannot be rejected on a **bald assertion of “common general knowledge”** without identifying the source of such knowledge and establishing that it existed prior to the relevant priority date. ## Summary In *Deepak Nitrite Limited v. The Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs*, Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 107 of 2025, the Bombay High Court set aside an order refusing Deepak Nitrite Limited’s patent application for a free-flowing food-grade sodium nitrite product and its production method. The Court held that a patent application cannot be rejected on a bald assertion of “common general knowledge” without identifying the source of such knowledge and establishing that it existed prior to the relevant priority date. It further reiterated that **inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970** must be assessed by considering the claimed invention as a whole, particularly where the claims recite an integrated combination of process steps, rather than by isolating individual claim elements. ## Facts of the Case Deepak Nitrite Limited filed **Patent Application No. 202021019409** seeking protection for a food-grade sodium nitrite product and an integrated manufacturing process. The Assistant Controller rejected Claims 1–8 under Section 15 of the Patents Act on the ground that they lacked an inventive step. The Petitioner challenged the refusal, contending that the Controller ignored the distinguishing impurity profile of the claimed product and mechanically rejected the application by stating that reduction of impurities constituted “common general knowledge”. The Petitioner further argued that the Controller analysed only one filtration step in the process claims instead of evaluating the **integrated manufacturing process** as claimed. While defending the order, the Respondent ultimately conceded that the process claims had not been analysed in accordance with the legal principles governing inventive step. ## Issue before the Court Whether the Controller could reject the patent application by relying upon an **unsupported assertion of “common general knowledge”** without identifying its source and demonstrating its existence prior to the relevant priority date. And whether the Controller could analyse individual elements of an integrated process claim in isolation rather than assessing the claimed invention as a whole for determining inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. ## Findings of the Court The Court held that the **impugned order was legally unsustainable**. ### Inventive Step and Integrated Process Claims In relation to the process claims, the Court observed that the claimed invention must be assessed as a whole, particularly where the claims recite an **integrated combination of process steps**, rather than by isolating an individual step and assessing it independently. By focusing solely on the filtration stage and ignoring the integrated combination of manufacturing steps, the Controller failed to undertake the statutory analysis required under the Patents Act. ### Reliance on Common General Knowledge The Court also rejected the Controller’s reliance on “common general knowledge” without identifying its source or establishing that such knowledge existed prior to the relevant priority date. Referring to *AGFA NV*, *F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.*, *Medipack Global Ventures* and other precedents, the Court reiterated that the Controller must follow a structured analysis. Specifically, the Controller must: 1. Identify the **person skilled in the art**. 2. Identify the inventive concept. 3. Consider the common general knowledge as it existed at the relevant priority date. 4. Identify the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention. 5. Identify the source of any asserted common general knowledge. Unsupported assertions or a Controller’s *ipse dixit* cannot substitute a reasoned quasi-judicial determination. ### Recurring Deficiencies in Patent Examination The Court further criticised the recurring practice of issuing **non-speaking orders** that reproduce or substantially rely upon examination reports without independently addressing the applicant’s submissions and the statutory objections. It observed that similar deficiencies in patent examination had resulted in repeated remands, increased costs and delays in patent prosecution. The Court referred to several recent decisions involving comparable deficiencies, including: - Failures to consider applicants’ submissions and evidence - Inadequate claim construction and inventive-step analysis - Reliance on hindsight or unsupported assertions of common general knowledge - Mechanical reproduction of material without independent reasoning ## Held The Bombay High Court allowed the petition and **set aside the Assistant Controller’s order** dated 2 March 2023 refusing the patent application under Section 15 of the Patents Act. The Court remanded the application for fresh consideration before a different Controller in accordance with the settled principles governing inventive step and directed that a **reasoned order be passed within twelve weeks**. ## Conclusion The decision reinforces that patent examination must be **transparent, reasoned and evidence-based**. It reiterates that patent applications cannot be rejected on unsupported assertions of “common general knowledge” or by mechanically analysing isolated elements of an integrated claim. By emphasising reasoned orders, proper claim construction and comprehensive inventive-step analysis, the Bombay High Court has reinforced the procedural safeguards governing patent examination and reaffirmed that quasi-judicial decisions of the Patent Office must disclose a clear chain of reasoning capable of meaningful judicial review. The judgment is particularly significant for its recognition of **recurring deficiencies in patent examination** and its emphasis on the need for Patent Office authorities to independently engage with applicants’ submissions, evidence and statutory objections. It highlights the importance of analytical rigour in patent examination and the need to reduce avoidable remands arising from inadequately reasoned orders. *Last Updated on 11 August, 2026* Get King Stubb & Kasiva’s legal updates in your Google feed[![Add King Stubb & Kasiva as a preferred source on Google](https://ksandk.com/wp-content/uploads/google_preferred_source_badge_light_en@2x.png)](https://www.google.com/preferences/source?q=https://ksandk.com/) --- ## Office Locations - [New Delhi](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-delhi/) (HQ): +91-11-41318190 | info@ksandk.com - [Mumbai](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-mumbai/): 3 offices (Nariman Point, Lower Parel, Andheri) | mumbai@ksandk.com - [Bangalore](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-bangalore/): bangalore@ksandk.com - [Chennai](https://ksandk.com/locations/chennai/): chennai@ksandk.com - [Hyderabad](https://ksandk.com/locations/hyderabad/): hyderabad@ksandk.com - [Pune](https://ksandk.com/locations/pune/): pune@ksandk.com - [Kochi](https://ksandk.com/locations/kochi/): kochi@ksandk.com ## Contact - [Contact Page](https://ksandk.com/contact-us/) - General: info@ksandk.com | +91-11-41318190 - WhatsApp: +91-7428567444 - [Privacy Statement](https://ksandk.com/privacy-statement/) - [Terms of Use](https://ksandk.com/terms-of-use/)