Case Review: Huntington Alloys Corporation v. Union of India & Ors

In the recent decision of Huntington Alloys Corporation v. Union of India & Ors, the Bombay High Court established a ruling that analyzes the critical tension between Section 4 of the Patents Act, 1970, and Section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.

Factual Background

In 2010, the Petitioner, Huntington Alloys Corporation, filed a National Phase patent application, via the PCT, for an invention called “Ultra Supercritical Boiler Header Alloy and Method of Preparation”. The invention involves using a high strength nickel-cobalt-chromium alloy, designed for long life service of pipes used in industrial boilers at temperatures between 538°C and 816°C.

The interesting factor about this alloy is that it also consist of specialized elements found in nuclear energy reactor i.e. Niobium and Tantalum. Herein,

1. Niobium acts as a reinforcing agent that hardens the alloy against intense heat while ensuring it can be welded without cracking, and

2. Tantalum further adds strength to it, but has been strictly kept to less than 0.3% to prevent the material from becoming brittle over time.

Together, these elements ensure the alloy remains stable and tough for decades of demanding service

But due to shortage in the number of examiners, as claimed by the Patent Office, it was only after a decade of pendency, the Deputy Controller examined the patent application in 2020.

Since the invention utilized these specialised elements, the Petitioner alleged that a prima facie view was formed by the Examiner that the invention fell within the scope of Section 4 of the Patents Act, 1970. As per this section, any invention that involves atomic energy, from using to even providing safety containers for it, are prohibited from being granted patents.

According to Section 20(6) of the Atomic Energy Act, such patent applications are then forwarded to the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) as part of final direction/confirmation from the Central Government. In 2021, the DAE issued a final refusal, summarily concluding that the invention was related to atomic energy.

But without providing any technical justification or reasoning.

Court’s Finding

Relying on the precedent of Ceres Intellectual Property Company Limited v. The Controller of Patents (2022), where a rejection for ceramic films was set aside for being “dehors the reasons” (without reasons), the Court ruled that reasons are the heartbeat of a judicial decision, replacing subjectivity with objectivity.

Accordingly, the Court observed that under Section 65(2) of the Patents Act, applicants have a statutory right to amend their complete specifications to avoid a total refusal. While Section 20(1) of the Atomic Energy Act grants the Central Government final authority to refuse a patent, the Court held this is not a license for arbitrariness. A non-speaking order effectively denies the applicant the opportunity to modify the invention to fall outside the atomic energy embargo.

Takeaways

This judgement sets a key precedent foundational to administrative law: While the government is authorised to refuse certain patent applications by law, it is injustice to do so without granting the inventor a fair opportunity to review or make amendments to their applications.

Even though patenting atomic energy inventions is generally barred in India, it is not an insurmountable restriction if the Government grants its formal approval.

As an aside, the Court also emphasised the upcoming Sustainable Harnessing And Advancement of Nuclear Energy For Transforming India Act, 2025, an Act that aims to promote nuclear energy for civil and welfare purposes.

The Court’s emphasis is that India is moving towards fostering innovations rather than merely enforcing prohibitions, and blanket denial of an invention without a speaking order is contrary to such goals.

Author: Varun Dubey, Legal Intern at PA Legal