Defining "Immorality" And "Against Public Order" In Patent Rejections: A Critical Analysis Of Section 3(B) Of The Patents Act, 1970

Khushi V Kotha, School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be) University

ABSTRACT:

Immorality anywhere is a threat to morality everywhere.

While morality and law are closely related, they are not always in perfect harmony. What is considered morally right by some may not always align with the laws of a particular society. Conversely, some laws may be perceived as morally unjust by certain individuals or groups. There has always been an ambivalent interpretation of the phrases “against public order” and “morality” under Section 3 (b) of The Patents Act, 1970. The gap in the exegesis leads to subjective analysis and conclusion in Patent rejections which is flawed. The paper examines the evolving jurisprudential landscape surrounding these terms, seeking to unravel their inherent complexities and ambiguities. The primary objective of this research is to provide a comprehensive understanding of how patent authorities, particularly patent officers, construe and apply the criteria of "immorality" and "against public order" when assessing patent applications. The paper scrutinizes case law, legal precedents, and relevant statutory provisions to shed light on the factors and principles that influence the patent officers' decision-making process. Furthermore, this paper explores the grounds upon which a patent officer may reject a patent application based on the aforementioned criteria. It analyses the delicate balance between safeguarding intellectual property rights and ensuring that patents do not grant exclusive rights to inventions that may be detrimental to societal values and ethics. Ultimately, it seeks to contribute to the ongoing discourse on the intersection of intellectual property law and societal values, offering guidance for both policymakers and practitioners in this evolving legal landscape.

Keywords: Article 53(a), public order, morality, rejection, Section 3(b)