{
  "id": 6679506,
  "title": "Bombay HC Orders Patent Office To Reconsider Scientist’s Application After 13-Year Delay",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/11/bombay-hc-orders-patent-office-to-reconsider-scientists-application",
  "topic": "science",
  "section": "Science",
  "published": "2026-09-11T00:30:30.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Free Press Journal",
    "slug": "free-press-journal",
    "url": "https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/bombay-hc-orders-patent-office-to-reconsider-scientists-application-after-13-year-delay"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Mumbai, September 10, 2026: The Bombay High Court has ordered the Patent Office to reconsider a scientist's patent application after a 13-year delay, which significantly reduced the 20-year period for legal protection. The court ruled that Dr Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil, the sole inventor of an \"Apparatus and a Method for In-Vivo Power Generation\" device, was the rightful owner of the invention. The case arose from a dispute over who owned the invention, with IIT-Bombay initially holding intellectual property rights over the innovation, developed by Patil during his PhD studies at the institution. However, on July 3, 2017, IIT-Bombay executed a worldwide Deed of Assignment transferring all rights to Patil, including those in India and abroad. The court dismissed the notion that the unilateral assignment was legally valid for the United States and other foreign countries, asserting that Patil was now the sole proprietor of the invention. Patil had already secured two U.S. patents under his name, further solidifying his ownership claim. The inventor's patent application had remained pending for over 13 years before being rejected by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs in 2025. The High Court overturned the rejection, stating that the application should have been examined on its merits rather than being dismissed. The court directed the Patent Office to reinstate the application, designate Patil as the applicant, and reevaluate the objections. A reasoned decision was given an eight-week deadline. The delay in processing the patent application, which reduced the protection period to just seven years, has sparked discussions about the consequences of such delays in the patent process.",
  "summary": "Mumbai, September 10, 2026: The Bombay High Court has observed that a 13-year delay in processing a scientist’s patent application had greatly reduced the 20-year period for which his invention could be legally protected. The court held that he was the sole owner of the invention and directed the Patent Office to reconsider his application on its merits. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing…",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}