HC comes to rescue of IIT-B researcher who was denied patent for invention in India

The inventor, Dr Tarkeshwar Patil, had approached the high court after his patent application, filed way back in August 2013, was rejected by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, in July 2025

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has come to the rescue of a researcher who secured a patent for his invention in fuel cells and biomedical applications in the United States, but was denied registration in India due to disputes with his PhD guide and the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT-B).

Mumbai, India - February 20, 2023: Posse of policemen deployed outside IIT Bombay after students protest seeking justice for 18-year-old Dalit student Darshan Solanki, who died by suicide on February 12 inside IIT Bombay, in Mumbai, India, on Monday, February 20, 2023. (Praful Gangurde / HT Photo) (HT PHOTO)

“It is remarkable that he is a protected patentee in the USA, but the home country’s statutory framework to grant the same protection has been mired in tragic circumstances,” said a single-judge bench of justice Somasekhar Sundaresan.

The inventor, Dr Tarkeshwar Patil, had approached the high court after his patent application, filed way back in August 2013, was rejected by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, in July 2025.

Patil had joined IIT-B as a research assistant in June 2008. Two years later, he was selected for a PhD programme. In March 2013, he was awarded a senior research fellowship by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for research on fuel cells and biomedical applications, which led to the invention—power generation to keep devices implanted in the human body active—he sought to patent.

Patil first filed patent applications for his invention, based entirely on his doctoral thesis, in India in August 2013 and in the US in May 2014. The applications listed Patil as the primary inventor and his PhD guide, Professor Siddhartha Duttagupta, and fellow researcher Ramesh Pushpagandha as co-inventors.

However, soon after the application was filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office, disputes arose between Patil and Duttagupta, with both levelling allegations and counter-allegations against each other. Patil alleged that his guide refused to factor in his contribution in IIT-B’s response to the patent authorities.

Eventually, after the matter was escalated, IIT-B in July 2017 executed a deed and assigned Patil all worldwide intellectual property rights in the invention. Based on this, he obtained a patent for his invention in the US.

However, Patil stated in his petition that IIT-B and Duttagupta later took a U-turn and claimed that the rights were assigned only for the US, not worldwide, and, as such, the inventor was not entitled to seek a patent in India.

After hearing both sides, the high court held that the documentary evidence on record made it abundantly clear that Patil was the recognised owner of the invention It observed that the Controller of Patents’ order was silent on its own records, which show Patil as the applicant, but kept reverting to IIT-B each time, while the institute and Patil’s guide also kept disputing his ownership of the intellectual property.

“Patil has thereafter been made to run from pillar to post – in all, costing the invention statutory patent protection for 13 years out of the 20-year protection available in law and that too at the hands of an institution (IIT-B) that claims to be desirous of being declared the owner but has not even appealed the rejection of the patent application,” the court said.

The court also rapped the Controller of Patents for adopting an incorrect approach while rejecting the patent application. Restoring the patent application, with Patil as the applicant, the court further ordered that it be assigned to a senior officer who has not dealt with it before, and that it be decided within eight weeks.