Indigenous Energy Storage … vs Deputy Controller Of Patent And Designs … on 12 March, 2026

April 11, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Indigenous Energy Storage … vs Deputy Controller Of Patent And Designs … on 12 March, 2026

1. This application is filed by the Appellant seeking to place on record
additional evidence by way of Document-L containing expert opinion to
reaffirm distinction between subject patent and prior references D1, D2 and
D3; Document-M, data showcasing superior yield of claimed invention and
Document-N, which is a letter dated 08.11.2024 intimating about the
impugned order.

SPONSORED

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed in light
of judgment in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, (2012) 8
SCC 148, since these documents have a bearing on just adjudication of this

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 1 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

3. Application stands disposed of.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 & I.A. 3472/2025

4. This appeal is filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970
(‘1970 Act’) for quashing of order dated 18.10.2024 passed by Respondent
No.1, revoking Indian Patent No. 373806 (IN’806), titled “Cattle Manure
Derived Hard Carbon as Electrode Material for Sodium Ion Batteries and
Super Capacitors”.

5. To the extent necessary the facts are that the Appellant is a company
specializing in sustainable energy storage solutions, particularly, sodium-ion
battery technology. The focus of the company is on transforming
agricultural and bio-waste such as cattle manure and sodium precursors into
economically viable and environmentally friendly battery components. It is
averred in the appeal that the subject invention involves a unique and
scalable process to produce hard carbon from cattle manure for use in
sodium-ion batteries and supercapacitors. Key benefits include cost
effectiveness, environmental sustainability and superior technical
performance. Patent Application was filed on 04.11.2020 and Appellant
requested for examination on 17.11.2020. After publication on 27.11.2020,
First Examination Report (‘FER’) was issued on 06.01.2021 and response
was filed by the Appellant on 15.06.2021, whereafter patent was granted on
04.08.2021. Post-grant opposition was filed by Respondent No.2 on
03.08.2021, to which reply was filed by the Appellant on 30.09.2022. After
hearing and filing of written submissions, Respondent No.1 passed the
impugned order on 18.10.2024, revoking IN’806 under Section 25(2)(e) for

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 2 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
lack of inventive step and Section 25(2)(g) i.e., insufficient disclosure. To
appreciate the challenge by the Appellant it would be useful to refer to the
granted claims of IN’806 as follows:-

“Claim 1:

A process for preparation of Hard Carbon using Cattle Manure as
biomass precursor comprising the steps of
A. Drying the biomass precursor al a temperature in the range of
50°C to 100°C;

B. Grinding of product received after step A;
C. Mixing the obtained material in step B with an acid solution (HF),
phosphoric acid (H3PO4) or hydrochloric acid (HCI) having molar
concentration between 0.1 M to 5.0 M for 1h to 48 h, at a temperature
between 25°C to 60°C;

D. Washing the material obtained in step C thoroughly with de-
ionized (D.I.) water;

E. Dry the washed material obtained in step D at low pressure of
10-2 to 10-3 torr: and at appropriate temperature between 60°C to
100°C;

F. High temperature calcination of dried material obtained in step E,
involving single/multi-step controlled -environment (N2 or Argon gas)
and heating/cooling processes, in the range of 700 °C to 1600 °C for
0.5 h to 12 h.

Claim 2:

The process for preparing high performance Hard Carbon electrode
material for Sodium ion batteries using Cattle Manure as biomass
precursor as claimed in claim 1, wherein the biomass precursor from
cattle manure is selected from cow manure, bull manure, male or female
buffalo manure, male or female goat manure, male or female sheep
manure or poultry manure.

Claim 3:

The carbonaceous electrode material for rechargeable metal- ion

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 3 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
batteries, prepared by the method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the
rechargeable metal-ion battery is selected from lithium ion battery,
sodium ion battery, potassium ion battery, magnesium ion battery or
calcium ion battery.

Claim 4:

The carbonaceous electrode material as claimed in claim 3, wherein the
composite electrode for Sodium ion battery consists of synthesized hard
carbon material, binder and carbon black in mass percentage of (80 ± x):
(10 ± y): (10 ± z) respectively, where the values of x, y, and z vary between
0 to 20 in such a way that proportional percentage sum of hard carbon
material, binder and carbon black remains hundred.”

6. As averred, the object of the invention is to provide a facile, cost-
effective and industrially scalable method for cattle manure derived hard
carbon as a potential electrode material for sodium ion batteries and
supercapacitors and to provide an environmentally safe method for
preparation of electrode material and prepare a low cost electrode material
from biological waste and provide electrode material for sodium-ion
batteries and supercapacitors. For preparation of electrode material, the
cattle manure is heated in a hot air oven. Dried cattle manure is then ground
into powdered form and mixed with an acid solution. The acid mixed
solution is then thoroughly washed with an aqueous solution and vacuum
dried. The dried sample is then calcinated involving single/multi-step
controlled environment and heating/cooling processes.

7. Post-grant opposition was filed under Section 25(2)(b), (e) and (g).
Opponent relied upon prior arts: D1: WO 2020/208341 published on
15.10.2020; D2: A textbook titled ‘Atkins’ in Physical Chemistry, Eighth
Edition (2006) by Peter Atkins and Julio De Paula; and D3: US
2002/0192553 published on 19.12.2002. Respondent No.1 rejected the
opposition under Section 25(2)(b) finding the objection to be non-
sustainable. In respect of opposition under Section 25(2)(e), Respondent

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 4 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

“Analysis:

(i) Although D1 does not disclose “temperature range of 50°C to 100°C”

of step A of claim 1, but step of drying is implicit from the text “animal-
derived waste material is typically transported in form of dry or semi-dry
pallets” (See Page 4, lines 7 – 9 of D1). Hence, this step cannot be
considered as an inventive step because it is not very much clear what
technical advantage the above-mentioned step brings in the claimed
process of instant patent over D1. Apart from these, it is not clear how the
patentee has chosen the particular temperature range for drying the
biomass precursor.

(ii) D1 discloses (See Page 6, lines 6 – 15 of D1) “charring” or
“carbonisation” is performed to remove metal-ion and non-metal-ion
impurities. The charring step results in a charred animal-derived material
that has an enriched carbon content and a reduced hydrogen, nitrogen
and oxygen content, compared with the levels of hydrogen, nitrogen and
oxygen present in the uncharred animal-derived material. A key purpose
of carbonisation is to effectively lock the carbon into an insoluble matrix.
Therefore, it can be understood that “charring” or “carbonisation” will
increase the quality of the hard Carbon electrode material. So, this step
may be omitted for hard carbon electrode material with high purity (with
ash content less than 2%) and low pyrolysis yield (less than 5% yield) (See
Entry 4, Table 3 of D1 for details). Apart from these, it is not very much
clear that “Does the patentee have achieved hard Carbon electrode
material with higher pyrolysis yield as compared to D1, by not performing
the charring step?”. Patentee has not provided any experimental data
regarding the pyrolysis yield obtained from the claimed process of the
instant patent. So, the feature of “Difference in the material being
subjected to pre-treatment with the Hydrofluoric acid solution” cannot
be considered as an inventive step over D1.

(iii) D1 discloses “The acid solution is preferably dilute; 1.0M to less than
3.0M solutions work well, and a 2.0M solution, preferably a 2.0M HCl
solution, is especially preferred, Acid treatment is preferably performed
over a period of at least 4 hours, and a 6 hour is particularly preferred”

(See Page 10, lines 10 – 13 of D1) whereas in the instant patent, the HF
solution has molar concentration between 0.1 M and 5.0 M and the mixing
is done for 1 hr to 48 hr (See Step (C) of instant patent). Mere change in
the range of molar concentration of HF solution and mixing time,
cannot be considered as an inventive step because it is not very much
clear what technical advantage the abovementioned change brings in the
claimed process of instant patent over D1. Apart from these, it is not clear
how the patentee has chosen the particular molar concentration range and
mixing time range for acid wash treatment.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 5 of 26

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18

(iv) D1 discloses “The resulting acid treated material from step c) is
optionally dried………preferably 50 °C to 120 °C and further optionally
under reduced pressure (preferably a dynamic vacuum)” whereas in the
instant patent, the drying of washed material is done at low pressure of
10-2 to 10-3 torr and at temperature between 60°C to 100°C (See Step (E)
of instant patent). So, the temperature range used in the instant patent
cannot be considered to be the same as that in D1 and no specific range of
pressure is disclosed in D1. On the other hand, D2 clearly shows [Figure

4.5, Page 121] that at the low pressure range of 0.133 Pa to 1.33 Pa
(which is equivalent to 10-3 Torr to 10-2 Torr as mentioned in instant
Patent) and at temperature range of 333 K to 373 K (which is equivalent
to 60°C to 100°C as mentioned in the instant patent) water will be
converted into vapor phase. So, selection of the drying parameters, such
as duration, temperature and pressure cannot be considered to be an
inventive step in view of the combination of D1 and D2.

(v) Patentee is incorrect in respect of their comments that “NEGATIVE
TEACHING – The process of D1 will not work if the step of charring is
not performed. A person skilled in the art reading through the disclosure
of cited document D1 has no clue or motivation whatsoever to remove the
most essential step (charring/carbonization) to arrive at the process
claimed in the instant patent”. D1 discloses [page 21, entry 4 in Table 3]
that if the step of charring is not performed, then hard carbon with high
purity and low pyrolysis yield would have been obtained. So, it is not
correct to state that the process of D1 will not work if the charring step is
not performed.

(vi) Patentee argued that “The starting material in D1 undergoes various
pre-treatment steps such as sink and float treatment. This changes the
property of the final (end) product obtained and it may lead to loss of a
large amount of the material (reactant) that ultimately lead to a poor yield
of the final product. In stark contrast to the above, the instant patent does
not involve any pre-treatment steps”.

But, it is not very much clear that “Does the patentee have
achieved hard carbon electrode material (final product) with higher
yield as compared to D1, by not performing the pre-treatment steps?”.
Patentee has not provided any experimental data regarding the yield
obtained from the claimed process of the instant patent. So, the feature of
“Not performing pre-treatment steps” cannot be considered as an
inventive step over D1.

(vii) “The use of HF solution to decrease the concentration of SiO2 and
other metallic impurities (Step C of Claim 1)” cannot be considered as an
inventive step because D1 clearly discloses the use of HF solution to
decrease the concentration of SiO2 and other metallic impurities (see page
4, lines 16 to 28, page 5, lines 5 to 19 and page 10, lines 1 to 13 of D1).

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 6 of 26

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18

(viii) D1 discloses “The preferred temperature for a chemical treatment
(i.e. acid treatment) in step (c) is at least 10 °C to less than 650 °C, further
preferably 50 °C to 550 °C” (See Page 9, lines 4 – 5 of D1), “Charring
step is performed at a temperature between 150 °C and 700 °C (See Page
7, lines 14 – 17 of D1) and “Pyrolysis step is performed between 700 °C
and 2500 °C (See Page 7, lines 23-25 of D1). From the above information,
it will be very obvious for a person skilled in the art to consider “HF
solution of temperature between 25 °C and 60 °C” (See Step (C) of Claim
1 of instant patent) as a “cold acid solution”.

(ix) Both D1 and D3 are related to “Process for preparing and use of
hard-carbon containing materials for the electrodes used in Sodium-ion
batteries”. D1 discloses (See page 11 lines 18 – 20 of D1) the use of hard
carbon-containing material made using animal-derived material, as an
electrode active material in secondary battery applications, especially in
alkali metal-ion cells, including in sodium-ion cells. D3 discloses (See
paragraphs [0170] – [0173] of D3) the ratio of carbon material, binder
and carbon-black as recited in granted claim 4. Given the disclosure in
Document D3 combined with the content of Document D1, a skilled person
would not have to use any creative ingenuity to arrive at a composite
electrode having the composition stated in claim 4. So, subject matter of
claim 4 cannot be considered to be an inventive step in view of D1 and D3.
Inference:

After careful examination of the Patentee’s and Opponent’s arguments
and submissions, objection u/s 25(2)(e) of The Patents Act, 1970 (as
amended in 2005), made by the Opponent is found to be sustainable.”

8. Objection under Section 25(2)(g) was also sustained by Respondent
No.1 as follows:-

“Analysis:

(i) Patentee argued that in “Tata Global Beverages Limited v. Hindustan
Unilever Limited, TRA/1/2007/PT/MUM, Oct 18, 2020”, Hon’ble IPAB
held that the sufficiency requirement is met if at least one way of working
the invention is clearly described, enabling a skilled person to carry out
the invention. There is also no need to provide examples over the
entire scope claimed in the patent. In this regard, it is to be mentioned
that the patent office had never asked the patentee before, during and
after the hearing to provide examples over the entire scope of the
invention.

(ii) In “ISCHEMIX LLC vs THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS,
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 33/2022 and I.A. 23186/2023, Nov 22, 2023”,
Hon’ble High Court held that “In a patent application for such subject

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 7 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
matter, the patent specification, itself, ought to contain some data and
results of lab experiments which demonstrate enhancement of efficacy of
the subject invention for which patent is sought. However, if there is any
additional data which becomes available, the said data ought to be
submitted by the patent applicant and be placed before the Patent Office
prior to the date of final oral hearing. It is often observed that patent
applicants file such data in written submissions, after conclusion of oral
hearings before the Patent Office, without referring to the said data during
oral hearings. This may potentially lead to a situation, as in the present
case, where the Patent Office may have overlooked the data and failed to
consider the same. There is also the possibility of the data not being
completely understandable, in mere written submissions without oral
explanation.” In this regard, the patent office had asked the patentee to
provide experimental result s /data related to the “purity/yield of the
hard carbon electrode material” obtained using the claimed process of
the instant patent such that it can establish the technical advance of the
instant patent over the cited documents D1, D2 and D3. But no such
experimental result/data had been provided by the patentee before,
during and after the hearing.

(iii) D1 discloses (See Page 6, lines 6 – 15 of D1) “charring” or
“carbonisation” is performed to remove metal-ion and non-metal-ion
impurities. The charring step results in a charred animal-derived material
that has an enriched carbon content and a reduced hydrogen, nitrogen
and oxygen content, compared with the levels of hydrogen, nitrogen and
oxygen present in the uncharred animal-derived material. A key purpose
of carbonisation is to effectively lock the carbon into an insoluble
matrix. Therefore, it can be understood that “charring” or
“carbonisation” will increase the quality of the hard Carbon electrode
material. So, this step may be omitted for hard Carbon electrode material
with high purity (with ash content less than 2%) and low pyrolysis yield
(less than 5% yield)(See Entry 4, Table 3 of D1). Apart from these, it is
not very much clear that “does the patentee have achieved hard Carbon
electrode material with higher pyrolysis yield as compared to D1, by not
performing the charring step?”. Patentee has not provided any
experimental data regarding the pyrolysis yield obtained from the
claimed process of the instant patent. Hence, it is not very much clear
whether the claimed process of the instant patent is industrially scalable
or not.

(iv) Patentee argued that “The starting material in D1 undergoes various
pretreatment steps such as sink and float treatment. This changes the
property of the final (end) product obtained and it may lead to loss of a
large amount of the material (reactant) that ultimately lead to a poor yield
of the final product. In severe contrast to the above, the instant patent
does not involve any pre-treatment steps ” . But, it is not evident that

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 8 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
“Does the patentee have achieved hard Carbon electrode material (final
product) with higher yield as compared to D1, by not performing the pre-
treatment steps?”. Patentee has not provided any experimental data
regarding the higher yield obtained from the claimed process of the
instant patent. So, it is still unclear that how by “Not performing pre-
treatment steps” can give higher yield as compared to D1.

(v) “The use of HF solution to decrease the concentration of SiO2 and
other metallic impurities (Step C of Claim 1)” is already disclosed in D1
(See Page 4, lines 16 to 28, Page 5, lines 5 to 19 and Page 10, lines 1 to
13 of D1).

(vi) D1 further discloses “the preferred temperature for a chemical
treatment (i.e.acid treatment) in step (c) is at least 10°C to less than
650°C, further preferably 50°C to 550°C” (See Page 9, lines 4 – 5 of D1),
“Charring step is performed at a temperature between 150°C and 700°C
(See Page 7, lines 14 – 17 of D1) and “Pyrolysis step is performed
between 700°C and 2500°C (See Page 7, lines 23-25 of D1). From the
above facts, it will be very obvious for a person skilled in the art to
consider “HF solution of temperature between 25°C and 60°C” (See
Step (C) of Claim 1 of instant patent) as a “cold acid solution”.

(vii) Detailed description of the granted patent talks only about “cow
manure” whereas amended claim 2 discloses “cattle manure is selected
from cow manure, bull manure, male or female buffalo manure, male or
female goat manure, male or female sheep manure or poultry manure”.
This makes the scope of the granted patent too broad. Apart from these,
the meaning of “Male or Female Buffalo” is also not clear.

(viii) Detailed description talks only about “Sodium ion battery” whereas
amended claim 3 discloses “rechargeable metal-ion battery is selected
from lithium ion battery, sodium ion battery, potassium ion battery,
magnesium ion battery or calcium ion battery. This makes the scope of
the granted patent too broad.

(ix) Claims 3 and 4 are both product by process claims. The statements
of these claims are very much ambiguous in nature such that it has
become very difficult to identify the boundary of the scope of the claims.

(x) During the hearing, the agent of the patentee said that they can delete
dependent claims 3 and 4 to overcome the objections mentioned in points

(ii) and (iii) above. But, the patentee had not deleted the dependent
claims 3 and 4 in the written submission.

Inference: After careful examination of the patentee’s and opponent’s
arguments and their respective written submissions, objection u/s 25(2)(g)
of The Patents Act, 1970 (as amended in 2005), made by the opponent is
found to be sustainable.”

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 9 of 26

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18

9. Learned counsel for the Appellant lays a siege to the impugned order
on multiple grounds. It is urged that the objection of novelty was rightly
rejected under Section 25(2)(b) but despite that the objections under Section
25(2)(e) and (g) were erroneously and illegally upheld. Firstly, Respondent
No.1 did not follow the five-step test required for evaluating lack of
inventive step elucidated by this Court in F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. &
Anr. v. Cipla Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13619. Respondent No.1 did not
identify the person skilled in the art for judging the inventive step of the
claimed invention and also failed to identify the inventive concept embodied
in the patent. Respondent No.1 failed to identify whether the differences
brought out by Respondent No.2 between the claimed invention and prior
arts, viewed in the knowledge of alleged invention, constituted steps which
would have been obvious to the ordinary person skilled in the art and rule
out hindsight approach and the impugned order deserves to be set aside on
this ground alone. It is also urged that the mere existence in the prior arts of
each of the elements in the invention, will not ipso facto mean obviousness
and there must be a coherent thread leading from prior arts to the invention
and the tracing of the thread must be an act which follows obviously.
Hindsight deduction is impermissible, as held by this Court in F. Hoffman
(supra).

10. It is further urged that the opponent has not discharged the burden of
proving lack of inventive step. Prior art D1 does not disclose several steps of
the process of preparing high performance hard carbon electrode material
for sodium-ion batteries using cattle manure as biomass precursor, as
claimed in Claim 1 of the invention. The inventive process involves the
following steps, which are not disclosed in D1:-

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 10 of 26

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
“(i) drying the biomass precursor at a temperature in the range of 50
degrees C to 100 degrees C,

(ii) mixing the obtained material in step B (i.e. dried and ground precursor
material) with Hydrofluoric acid solution having molar concentration
between 0.1M to 5.0 M for 1hr to 48hr at a temperature between 26-60
degrees C;

(iii) washing the material obtained in step C (i.e., dried and ground
precursor material treated with the Hydrofluoric acid solution) thoroughly
with de-ionized water; and

(iv) dry the washing material obtained in step D at low pressure of 10-2
to10-3 torr and at appropriate temperature between 60-100 degrees C.”

11. D1 teaches that the starting material is transported in dried or semi-
dried condition, implying thereby that precursor material of D1 is naturally
dried or semi-dried animal derived material and does not lead a person
skilled in the art to arrive at the step of drying a biomass precursor at a
temperature in the range of 50°C to 100°C. D1 discloses acid treatment of
alkaline treated charred material and further discloses that charring step
results in a charred animal derived material that has an enriched carbon
content and reduced hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen content compared with
levels of hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen present in the uncharred animal
derived material. However, the starting material mixed with acid solution in
D1 is not the same as material treated with Hydrofluoric Acid (HF) acid
solution in the instant patent. Moreover, acid treatment step in D1 is carried
out in presence of HCL at 80°C to 120°C in stark contrast to the instant
patent, wherein the acid treatment is performed using HF at 25°C to 60°C.
HF is used to decrease SiO2 and metallic content from the raw material,
which is not possible with HCL and this is one of the significant
technological advancement of the instant patent.

12. It is urged that D1 does not provide any motivation to skip the step of

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 11 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
charring and in fact, D1 would not have included the expensive and time
consuming step of charring, if it was possible to achieve the desired result
without following the said step. The key object of D1 being to reduce level
of impurities and step of charring being an essential step to reduce the
impurities, a skilled artisan, reading through the disclosure of D1 would
have never been motivated to remove or preclude the step of charring the
precursor material. It is thus clear that the analysis of Respondent No.1 is
borne out of hindsight, wherein using the presently claimed invention as a
blueprint, Respondent No.1 has firstly dissected the claimed invention into
individual piecemeals and then cherry picked the transportation of starting
material in dried or semi-dried condition and acid treatment without having
any regard to the technical differences in D1 and the patent. Respondent
No.1 did not appreciate that the process of D1 will not work if step of
charring was not performed. The acid treatment step in D1 is carried out in
presence of ‘cold’ HCL in stark contrast to the instant patent, where the acid
treatment is performed using HF at 25°C to 60°C and this is an important
difference. A person with an average skill in the art would appreciate that
the term ‘cold’ means that the product/solution (acid herein) has a
temperature below 8°C, while ‘cool’ means a temperature between 8°C to
15°C and ‘warm’ means temperature between 20°C to 40°C and neither of
these terms can be confused with each other. Moreover, the starting material
in D1 undergoes various pre-treatment steps such as sink and float
treatment, which is not the case in the instant patent. Also, the percentage
yield obtained in D1 is much lower than in the instant patent and the
experimental data sought to be brought on record by separate application
before this Court will substantiate this fact.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 12 of 26

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18

13. It is further urged that insofar as D2 is concerned, it merely discloses
a phase diagram for water, illustrating the conditions under which water
exists in vapour, liquid or solid phases at different temperatures and pressure
points. While this information has scientific value, it is wholly irrelevant to
the instant patent, which pertains to preparation of hard carbon materials and
their use in composite electrodes, with no reliance on or applicability of
water phase diagrams and hence, D2 is a non-analogous prior art. D3
focuses on formulations for sodium-ion batteries, specifically detailing
composition of positive and negative electrodes and is a non-analogous prior
art. Claim 4 of instant patent discloses a composite electrode material,
specifically tailored for sodium-ion batteries and comprises synthesized high
carbon binder and carbon black in mass percentages. While D3 mentions
ratios superficially similar to those of Claim 4 of instant patent, its disclosed
methodology alligns with standard international practices for fabricating
electrodes for metal-ion batteries. Thus even the combined teachings of D1,
D2 and D3 would not lead a person skilled in the art to the novel and
inventive step of the instant patent.

14. It is further argued that Respondent No.1 incorrectly sustained the
ground of insufficient disclosure under Section 25(2)(g). Respondent No.2’s
contention was that Entry 4 in Table 3 of Example 4 in document D1
describes a process equivalent to the one set out in Claim 1 of the instant
patent. Opponent has merely raised a doubt about the scalability of the
invention based on the yield reported in the specification from the laboratory
scale experiment with no basis to raise the plea. It is settled that sufficiency
requirement is met if at least one way of working the invention is clearly
described, enabling a skilled person to carry out the invention and there is no

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 13 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
need to provide examples over the entire scope claimed in the patent. In any
event, instead of revoking the patent Respondent No.1 ought to have
provided an opportunity to the Appellant to submit additional data regarding
the improved yields of the claimed invention, which the Appellant has now
filed in this Court and which demonstrates the superior yield achieved by the
claimed process.

15. It is further argued that Respondent No.1 erroneously relied on D1
and combined it with D2 and D3, whereas none of them individually or
collectively teach or motivate the claimed invention. D1 concerns biomass
processing; D2 is a chemistry textbook; and D3 deals with electrode
formulation. Courts have held that mosaic combinations are impermissible
unless the prior art itself suggests the combination with a reasonable
expectation of success. Even if disclosures of D1, D2 and D3 are mosaicked,
a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to combine them to arrive
at the claimed invention in the present case.

16. Mr. Gaurav Barathi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1
defends the impugned order and submits that the patent was opposed by
post-grant opposition under Sections 25(2)(b), (e) and (g) and while
examining the objections, objection under Section 25(2)(b) was found to be
unsustainable while the others were held valid and by a detailed and
speaking order, patent has been rightly revoked. Respondent No.1 has found
on meticulous evaluation of the material on record that there is no inventive
step in the subject patent since the claimed invention neither involves
technical advancement as compared to existing knowledge nor has economic
significance. Non-performance of pre-treatment is not an inventive step.
Patentee contends that starting material in D1 undergoes various pre-

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 14 of 26

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
treatment steps such as sink and float treatment, which ultimately changes
the property of the final product obtained, leading to loss of large amount of
reactant material, thereby resulting in poor yield of the final product,
whereas this is not so in the claimed invention, however, patentee has not
shown how higher yield is obtained compared to D1 by not performing the
pre-treatment steps. Patentee claims that Step A of Claim 1 involves drying
the biomass precursor at a temperature in the range of 50°C to 100°C,
however, step of drying is implicit in D1 from the text ‘animal-derived
waste material is typically transported in form of dry or semi-dry pallets’.
Moreover, it is unclear as to what technical advantage this step brings in the
claimed process over D1.

17. It is further urged that Step C in the patent process is also not an
inventive step. In regard to acid treatment, D1 discloses acid wash treatment
including HF solution at 60°C with preferred molar concentration of 2.0 M
for preferably six hours, whereas in the subject patent, HF solution has
molar concentration between 0.1 M and 5.0 M and mixing is done for 1 to
48 hours. Therefore, mere change in range of molar concentration of HF
solution and mixing time is not an inventive step. Moreover, D1 also
discloses the use of HF solution to decrease concentration of SiO2 and other
metallic impurities. The skilled person would know that a beaker of acid in a
lab at ambient temperature in UK will include a temperature of 25°C and
therefore, the skilled person would construe the term ‘cold acid solution’ in
entry 4 of Table 3 of D1 to include an acid solution at 25°C. Secondly, this
interpretation is supported by page 10, lines 18 to 20 of D1. This is because
an acid solution, which has been ‘heated’ includes a preferable temperature
range from 50°C to 120°C. This range does not extend to 25°C, which

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 15 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
supports the interpretation that a ‘cold acid solution’ includes a temperature
of 25°C. If entry 4 of Table 3 of D1 intended to exclude an acid solution at
ambient temperature 25°C, it would refer to it as a ‘cooled acid solution’,
rather than a ‘cold acid solution’.

18. It is argued that drying parameters of the subject patent is not an
inventive step. In regard to drying of acid treated material, D1 discloses
optional drying preferably at 50°C to 120°C and reduced pressure, whereas
in the subject patent drying of washed material is done at low pressure of
10-2 to 10-3 torr and at temperature between 60°C to 100°C. D2 clearly
evinces that water will be converted into vapor phase at low pressure range
of 0.133 Pa to 1.33 Pa (equivalent to 10-3 to 10-2 torr in the instant patent)
and at temperature range of 333 K to 373 K. Hence, in view of prior arts D1
and D2, selection of drying parameters such as duration, temperature and
pressure cannot be considered as an inventive step.

19. It is argued that subject matter of claim 4 is also not an inventive step.
Both D1 and D3 are related to ‘Process for preparing and use of hard-
carbon containing materials for the electrodes used in Sodium-ion
batteries’. D1 discloses the use of hard carbon-containing material made
using animal-derived material, as an electrode active material in secondary
battery applications, especially in alkali metal-ion cells, including in
sodium-ion cells. D3 discloses the ratio of carbon material, binder and
carbon-black as mentioned in Claim 4 of subject patent. Therefore, in light
of disclosures in D1 and D3, it was rightly concluded that a skilled person
would not have to use any creative ingenuity to arrive at a composite
electrode having the composition stated in Claim 4 and it cannot be
construed that Claim 4 involves an inventive step.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 16 of 26

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18

20. It is urged that Patent has been rightly revoked under Section 25(2)(g)
of 1970 Act inasmuch as complete specification of subject patent does not
sufficiently describe the invention. Further, experimental data was also not
fully disclosed by the patentee despite the Patent Office asking the Appellant
to do so and provide data relating to ‘purity/yield of the hard carbon
electrode material’ obtained using the claimed process of the patent so as to
establish technical advancement of the subject patent over cited prior arts
D1, D2 and D3. D1 discloses performing of charring or carbonisation to
remove metal-ion and non-metal-ion impurities and the key purpose of
carbonisation is to effectively lock the carbon into an insoluble matrix and
hence, it is evident that charring/carbonisation will increase quality of hard
carbon electrode material and so the charring step may be omitted for hard
carbon electrode material with high purity i.e., with ash content less than 2%
and low pyrolysis yield i.e., less than 5% yield. In the instant patent, it
cannot be inferred whether, without performing the charring step, patentee is
able to achieve hard carbon electrode material with higher pyrolysis yield as
compared to D1. Since no experimental data was provided by the Appellant,
it could not be inferred whether the claimed process is industrially scalable
or not. Further, patentee has not disclosed as to whether hard carbon
electrode material with higher yield as compared to D1, is achievable
without performing pre-treatment steps and thus there is no infirmity in the
impugned order as the subject patent has been rightly revoked.

21. Heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their rival
submissions.

22. The subject patent involves a scalable process to produce hard carbon
from cattle manure for use in sodium-ion batteries and supercapacitors. Key

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 17 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
benefits include cost effectiveness, environmental sustainability and superior
technical performance. The object to the invention is to provide a facile, cost
effective and industrially scalable method for cattle manure derived hard
carbon as a potential electrode material for sodium-ion batteries and
supercapacitors as also to provide an environmentally safe method for
preparation of electrode material and to prepare a low-cost electrode
material from biological waste. IN’806 was granted on 04.08.2021,
however, on post-grant opposition by Respondent No. 2, filed on
03.08.2021, patent was revoked under Section 25(2)(e) for lack of inventive
step and under Section 25(2)(g) for insufficient disclosure.

23. The first contention of the Appellant is that Respondent No. 1 did not
follow the five steps elucidated by the Division Bench in F. Hoffmann
(supra) to determine whether the patent satisfied the requirement of
inventive step and lack of obviousness. For the sake of reference, the five
steps are as follows:-

Step No. 1 – To identify an ordinary person skilled in the art;
Step No. 2 – To identify the inventive concept embodied in the patent;
Step No. 3 – To impute to a normal skilled but unimaginative ordinary
person skilled in the art what was common general knowledge in
the art at the priority date;

Step No. 4 – To identify the differences, if any, between the matter
cited and the alleged invention and ascertain whether the differences
are ordinary application of law or involve various different steps
requiring multiple, theoretical and practical applications; and
Step No. 5 – To decide whether those differences, viewed in the
knowledge of alleged invention, constituted steps which would have

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 18 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
been obvious to the ordinary person skilled in the art and rule out
hindsight approach.

24. In Tapas Chatterjee v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6369, another Division Bench of this
Court held that that five steps in F. Hoffmann (supra) have to be followed
sequentially while examining the aspect of obviousness and existence of
inventive step. In the present case, as rightly flagged by the Appellant,
Respondent No. 1 has not followed the first step of identifying an ordinary
person skilled in the art and this, to my mind vitiates the impugned order. In
Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs,
2022 SCC OnLine Del 940, this Court held that while rejecting an
application for lack of inventive step, discussion on prior art, subject
invention and manner in which the subject invention would be obvious to a
person skilled in the art will be mandatory and merely arriving at a
conclusion that subject invention lacks inventive step will be contrary to
Section 2(1)(ja) of the 1970 Act.

25. The next step required to be followed while determining the inventive
steps was to identify the inventive concept embodied in the patent and then
to impute to a normal skilled but unimaginative ordinary person skilled in
the art what was common general knowledge in the art at the priority date.
Thereafter differences, if any, between the cited matter and alleged
invention were to be identified to ascertain whether differences are ordinary
application of law or involve various different steps requiring multiple,
theoretical and practical applications and then decide whether those
differences, viewed in the knowledge of alleged invention, constitute steps
which would have been obvious to the ordinary person skilled in the art and

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 19 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
rule out a hindsight approach. In the instant case, Respondent No.1 has not
identified the person skilled in the art and while differences flagged by
Respondent No.2 have been noted, the fifth step also has not been followed
and the patent has been revoked applying a hindsight approach.

26. In the response filed by the Appellant to the post-grant opposition, it
had extensively flagged the differences between prior arts D1, D2 and D3
and the claimed invention, especially in the steps involved in the processes,
however, Respondent No. 1 has negated the submissions broadly on two-
fold grounds: (a) inventive step does not clearly bring out the Technical
Advantage; or (b) that there is no experimental data to prove higher yield
and/or significant reduction of SiO2 and metals as impurities.

27. There is no gainsaying that every step involved in the claimed process
of IN’806 was crucial. Appellant brought forth that the starting material in
the subject patent was cattle manure as a biomass precursor and the steps in
the process included: (a) drying the cattle manure to remove inherent
moisture content; (b) grinding the dried biomass to reduce particle size and
ensure uniformity; (c) treating the ground biomass with HF with a specified
molar concentration at a specified temperature which facilitates removal of
impurities and enhances material properties; (d) washing the material with
de-ionized water to neutralise any residual acid and remove impurities; (e)
drying under vacuum conditions on specified temperatures and pressure,
which ensures minimal residual moisture: and (f) calcinating the dried
material at specified temperatures for a specific duration to promote
structural transformation of the material and enhance its functionality.
Appellant urged that the process in D1 was different, where starting material
undergoes various pre-treatment steps such as sink and float treatment and

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 20 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
mandatorily requires step of charring of pre-treated product obtained in
step 1, which completely changes the property of the final product, whereas
the subject patent is completely devoid of step of charring.

28. As per the Appellant, step 3 in D1 includes treatment of charred
material with alkali solutions with a specified molar concentration followed
by acid treatment with HCL at given molar concentration and at elevated
temperature. Acid treated material is washed with hot boiling water to
remove residual acid and water soluble impurities, whereafter drying is
carried out under reduced pressure and finally the dried and treated charred
material is subjected to pyrolysis at specified temperatures resulting in a
thermally treated product with enhanced properties. The case of the
Appellant is that the pre-treatment steps in D1 are fundamentally different
from subject patent as the sink and float treatment separates material based
on their densities but subject patent does not require any such step. Negative
teaching is that process of D1 will not work in the absence of charring step.
Therefore, a person skilled in the art reading through the disclosure of the
cited document D1 has no clue or motivation to remove the most essential
step of charring/carbonisation to arrive at the process claimed in the instant
patent.

29. Appellant also brought forth that D1 discloses that charring step
results in a charred animal-derived material, which has enriched carbon
content and reduced hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen content compared to the
levels in uncharred animal-derived material. The key purpose of
carbonisation is to effectively lock carbon into an insoluble matrix and
therefore, the material being subjected to mixing with acid solution in D1 is
not the same as material being mixed with HF solution as in the instant

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 21 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
patent. Moreover, acid treatment step in D1 is carried out in presence of
HCL at 80°C to 120°C in stark contrast to instant patent where acid
treatment is performed using HF at 25°C to 60°C.

30. In respect of cited prior art D2 it was urged before Respondent No.1
that D2 is only a phase diagram of water taken from a Textbook titled
‘Atkins Physical Chemistry’, Eighth Edition, which shows physical states of
water under different temperature and pressure conditions i.e., vapor, liquid
or solid phases. While this information has scientific value, it was wholly
unrelated to the subject matter claimed in the instant patent, which pertains
to preparation of hard carbon material with no reliance on or applicability of
water phase diagram and hence, D2 was an entirely non-analogous prior art.
In respect of D3 it was brought out that its teachings focus on formulation
for sodium-ion batteries and detail composition of positive and negative
electrodes. These are generic compositional ranges reflecting standard
practice in the battery industry. Claim 4 of the instant patent, however,
defines a specific composite electrode comprising synthesized hard carbon,
binder and carbon black in precisely controlled ratios (80 + x : 10 + y : 10 +
z) with x, y, z < 20%, maintaining total = 100%. While D3 mentions ratios
superficially similar to those in Claim 4, its disclosed methodology aligns
with standard international practices for fabricating electrodes for metal-ion
batteries and does not disclose or suggest the process sequence or material
synthesis route of the instant patent. D3 is a generic insertion material and
not the specific HF-treated, non-charred hard carbon derived under the
instant patent and cannot anticipate or render obvious the process or
resulting material disclosed in the instant patent. Appellant further asserted
that even if combined teachings of D1, D2 and D3 are mosaicked, a person

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 22 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
skilled in the art would not be motivated to arrive at the claimed invention.
For mosaicking of multiple prior arts, opponent must prove how a person
skilled in the art would have led to combining documents D1-D3, which
onus was not discharged by the post-grant opposer since D1 relates to
manure processing, D2 to thermodynamics of water and D3 to electrode
formulations, fields completely non-analogous to one another. Hence, the
combined prior art also fails to yield instant patent’s sequence of HF
pre-treatment, omission of charring and resulting high performance hard
carbon.

31. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that Respondent
No.1 has not considered the aforesaid issues flagged by the Appellant in
response to the opposition in the right perspective. In a nutshell, Appellant
claims that comparisons with prior arts D1, D2 and D3 was misconceived as
D1 has different sequence of steps and teaches away from the invention. D2
is scientifically irrelevant and D3 is a distinct process and deals with generic
composition. As noted above, Appellant brought forth significant
differences in the claimed process and the process disclosed in D1, more
particularly, the pre-treatment steps of the starting material in D1 as also
charring being an important step in D1, which are conspicuously absent in
the subject patent and also pointed out that the sequence of treatment steps
i.e., HF mixing and multi-step heating stage plays a pivotal role in achieving
the desired hard carbon suitable for sodium-ion batteries and that any
deviation from the prescribed sequence, such as following the steps outlined
in D1 will result in the product characteristics being different. Experimental
data placed on record, according to the Appellant, demonstrates the
importance of adhering to sequence of steps. There is no determination on

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 23 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
these issues in the impugned order and Respondent No. 1 has simply dealt
with them by posing a question as to whether the patentee could have
achieved hard carbon electrode material with high pyrolysis yield as
compared to D1 by not performing the charring step and thereafter
observing that no experimental data has been given regarding the higher
yield. Basis this, a conclusion has been reached that the difference in
material being subjected to pre-treatment with HF acid solution is not an
inventive step. In my view, the differences identified by the Appellant in the
processes i.e., pre-treatment steps of starting material, charring process etc.
were crucial and ought to have been considered after identifying the person
skilled in the art. It was also pointed out by the Appellant that the difference
of treatment with HF and HCL was significant since HF in the claimed
invention dissolves and removes SiO2 and metallic impurities, which HCL in
D1 fails to do and while it reduces metallic content it does not eliminate
silica and consequently, instant invention yields technically advanced purity
and industrial superiority. This important distinction is also not considered
in the impugned order.

32. With respect to objection under Section 25(2)(g) of 1970 Act, broadly
speaking, contention of the Appellant is that Respondent No. 1 has
misapplied the test of sufficiency requirement. Appellant submits that
ground under Section 25(2)(g) can be raised only when the description of
the method or instructions for working the invention are not sufficient to
enable a person in India possessing average skill with average knowledge of
the art to which invention relates, to work the invention. The opposer
admitted that patentee has fully described the claimed invention including
disclosure of best mode of practising the claimed invention and merely

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 24 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
raised doubt about the scalability of the invention based on the yield
reported in the specification from the laboratory scale experiment but
provided no basis or evidence for the assertion.

33. It is trite that sufficiency requirement is met if at least one way of
working the invention is clearly described, enabling a skilled person to carry
out invention and there is no need to provide examples over the entire scope
claimed in the patent. Appellant has demonstrated that it has cited several
examples as part of the complete specification, which would enable a skilled
person to practise the claimed invention, however, as the impugned order
reflects, this issue has not been considered. Moreover, Appellant rightly
flags that no opportunity was granted to furnish the experimental data. In
this regard, be it also noted that in the impugned order it is mentioned at
more than one place that despite opportunity to the Appellant to furnish the
experimental data, it failed to do so. To verify this position, records were
called for, which did not substantiate this observation in the impugned order.
In this backdrop, Appellant filed an application before this Court for
producing additional evidence including experimental data, which has been
allowed since the data is crucial for just adjudication of the post-grant
opposition and moreover, additional evidence can be taken on record in the
interest of justice for proper adjudication of the case. [Ref.: Ibrahim Uddin
(supra)].

34. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view, that this is a fit case for
remand. It is accordingly directed that Respondent No.1 shall consider the
post-grant opposition afresh after taking into account the additional
documents allowed by this Court and all the issues raised by the Appellant
in reply to the opposition notice and detailed written submissions already on

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 25 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18
record, including the issues raised in the present appeal as also all
submissions raised in opposition. Decision will be taken after hearing both
the parties, within a period of four months from today. It is made clear that
this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

35. Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with pending
application.

JYOTI SINGH, J
MARCH 12, 2026/YA/AK

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2025 Page 26 of 26
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 20:39:18

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Indigenous Energy Storage … vs Deputy Controller Of Patent And Designs … on 12 March, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders