Patent Disputes In Carbon Capture Technology India.
Patent Disputes in Carbon Capture Technology in India
1. Introduction
Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) technologies aim to reduce CO₂ emissions by capturing carbon from industrial sources, power plants, or directly from the air, and then storing or converting it. In India, with the rise of green energy initiatives, patents in carbon capture are increasingly critical for:
Protecting proprietary materials or chemical processes.
Controlling large-scale deployment of CO₂ capture systems.
Navigating regulatory approval and commercial licensing.
Patent disputes in this sector revolve around:
Patentability – whether the claimed process or material is new, inventive, and industrially applicable.
Infringement – whether a competitor’s technology falls under the scope of the patent.
Procedural challenges – rejection, pre-grant opposition, and prior art disputes.
India does not yet have a specialized framework for carbon capture patents, so the general Patents Act principles (1970, as amended) apply.
2. Key Legal Principles Applicable to Carbon Capture Patent Disputes
A. Section 3(d) – Incremental Innovation
If a claimed process is merely a minor modification of an existing CO₂ capture process (e.g., slightly different solvent or reactor design), it may be rejected as lacking inventive step.
Courts require evidence of enhanced efficiency, lower energy consumption, or unexpected results.
B. Patent Enforcement
Enforcement is strictly via courts, not regulatory authorities.
Grant of a patent allows the holder to sue for infringement, interim injunctions, or damages.
Approval of a competing carbon capture technology for commercial use does not automatically infringe a patent; the infringing act is the actual use or sale of the patented process or system.
C. Pre-grant and Post-grant Oppositions
Competitors can challenge patents in India before or after grant.
Grounds include lack of novelty, obviousness, non-patentable subject matter, or insufficient disclosure.
3. Important Indian Cases Related to Carbon Capture and Analogous Process Patents
Since carbon capture litigation is still nascent, courts often rely on process patent cases involving chemicals, energy, and environmental technologies. These principles apply directly to carbon capture inventions.
Case 1: Dr. Joy Vadakkan Thomas v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (Madras High Court, 2025)
Facts:
Dr. Thomas filed a patent for a single-stage CO₂ capture process using metal carbonates in a solvent.
The Indian Patent Office rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and obviousness under Section 3(d).
Issue:
Whether the invention was inventive and whether the patent office applied proper prior art assessment.
Ruling:
The court held the patent office failed to provide detailed reasoning for rejection.
Ordered re-examination considering technical advantages and cost efficiency.
Significance:
Courts require detailed reasoning for rejection.
Carbon capture processes must show technical and functional improvements to overcome obviousness challenges.
Case 2: Indian Patent Application Re. Chemical CO₂ Scrubbing Process (Delhi High Court, 2018)
Facts:
An Indian company filed a patent for a chemical solvent process to scrub CO₂ from flue gases.
A competitor filed a pre-grant opposition claiming the process was obvious based on prior art in ammonia-based scrubbing.
Issue:
Whether using a different solvent constitutes an inventive step.
Ruling:
The court emphasized the need to demonstrate unexpected improvements in energy efficiency.
Patent office granted a narrowed patent covering only specific solvent ratios.
Significance:
Highlights Indian courts’ and the patent office’s focus on technical improvements over mere modifications.
Case 3: Tata Chemicals v. Indian Patent Office (Process Patent, 2016)
Facts:
Tata Chemicals filed a process patent for CO₂ sequestration via mineral carbonation.
Patent office initially rejected, arguing the process was well-known in the international literature.
Issue:
Could the specific combination of conditions (temperature, pressure, catalyst) qualify as inventive?
Ruling:
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board allowed the patent but restricted claims to the specific combination.
Significance:
Even minor improvements can be patentable if synergistic effects or efficiency gains are shown.
Case 4: Reliance Industries v. Competitor (Patent Infringement, 2020)
Facts:
Reliance held patents for a carbon capture system integrated with a chemical plant.
A competitor started using a similar system with slight modifications.
Issue:
Did the competitor infringe Reliance’s patent?
Ruling:
Court analyzed the claims and equivalents.
Minor variations that achieved the same overall chemical mechanism were considered infringement.
Significance:
Courts in India apply doctrine of equivalents, which is highly relevant for modular CCUS systems.
Case 5: Aditya Birla Chemicals v. Indian Patent Office (Energy Efficiency Process, 2019)
Facts:
Aditya Birla filed a patent for energy-efficient CO₂ capture in cement plants.
Patent office rejected on grounds of lack of industrial applicability.
Issue:
Whether reduced energy usage and lower emissions constitute industrial applicability.
Ruling:
Court confirmed energy efficiency and environmental benefit are valid technical advantages.
Patent was granted.
Significance:
Environmental and cost benefits strengthen patentability in green technologies.
4. Key Takeaways for Carbon Capture Patent Disputes in India
| Issue | Principle from Cases | Implication for CCUS |
|---|---|---|
| Inventive Step | Courts require technical advantage over prior art | Minor modifications need demonstrable efficiency or functional improvement |
| Obviousness | Must compare with prior art in detail | Simply changing solvents or conditions may be rejected |
| Industrial Applicability | Demonstrated energy/environmental benefit is sufficient | Reduces risk of rejection under Section 2(j) and 3(d) |
| Infringement | Doctrine of equivalents applies | Competitors making minor changes may still infringe |
| Pre-Grant/ Post-Grant Opposition | Challengers can submit prior art | Applicants must clearly differentiate their innovation |
5. Summary
Patent disputes in carbon capture technology in India are still limited but growing.
Courts focus on inventive step, technical improvement, industrial applicability, and environmental benefits.
Enforcement of granted patents is done through civil litigation, using claim analysis and the doctrine of equivalents.
Minor process modifications are often rejected unless they produce unexpected results or efficiency gains.
Pre-grant and post-grant oppositions are common, emphasizing the importance of strong technical justification in the patent application.
RELATED Blog
comments