What was the core issue in this case?

Whether the claimed utensil-making device involved an inventive step over what was already known or commonly used before the patent date.

How did the Court view ‘inventive step’?

A real technical advance. It must be more than a routine workshop improvement or business method known in the trade.

What is the role of prior art here?

Prior art can defeat a patent if the claimed features were obvious or part of common general knowledge before the patent.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

The invention did not show a significant advance. It failed the test of invention and was not patentable.

Why is this case important for exams?

It clarifies that Indian patent law demands genuine innovation; obvious tweaks or trade practices do not qualify.

Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries

Supreme Court on inventive step, prior art, and what counts as a mere workshop improvement.

Supreme Court 1979 2-Judge Bench (1979) 2 SCC 511 Patent Law ~7 min

CASE_TITLE: Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-01

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: inventive step; prior art; obviousness; patent validity; Supreme Court SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: workshop improvement; utensils device; Indian Patent & Designs Act 1911; infringement Slug: bishwanath-prasad-radhey-shyam-v-hindustan-metal-industries

Quick Summary

The case deals with what counts as an inventive step. A utensil-making device was patented. The rival used it and challenged the patent. The Supreme Court said: a patent must show a real technical advance over common knowledge. Mere trade practice or a workshop tweak is not enough. The invention here did not cross that bar.

Issues

Did the claimed device involve an inventive step over what was already known or used before the patent date?

Rules

Inventive Step: The invention must be more than a routine or obvious improvement to a skilled worker.
Prior Art: What the trade already knows or uses can defeat a patent if the advance is obvious.
No Patent for Workshop Tweaks: A mere change in method, arrangement, or workshop convenience is not a patentable invention.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline illustration of inventive step dispute

Trade background: Both parties made brass and German silver utensils in Mirzapur.

Risk in old method: Turning and polishing on a headstock was risky; utensils could fly off.

Patent filing: A device was patented under the Indian Patent & Designs Act, 1911 to make work safer and steadier.

Dispute: The rival began using similar features. Infringement suit was filed; a counterclaim sought revocation for lack of inventive step.

Journey: Single Judge dismissed; Division Bench restored the patent; finally, the matter reached the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant (Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam)

The patent lacks a true inventive step.
Changes are routine and drawn from common workshop knowledge.
Prior art shows similar ideas; the advance is obvious.

Respondent (Hindustan Metal Industries)

The device solved a serious safety and stability problem.
It offered a new, useful combination and deserved protection.
Industry impact showed inventive character beyond routine skill.

Judgment (Supreme Court of India)

Judgment themed image for inventive step

A patent must be new and show a real inventive step beyond common general knowledge.
Minor workshop refinements or business convenience do not qualify.
On facts, the device did not represent a substantial technical advance over prior art.

Citation: (1979) 2 SCC 511.

Ratio (Core Principle)

An invention is patentable only if it shows a genuine technical advance. If a skilled worker could reach the same result by routine skill or common knowledge, it is obvious and not patentable.

Why It Matters

Sets a clear Indian standard for inventive step vs. workshop improvement.
Guides courts and examiners in evaluating obviousness.
Protects the patent system from trivial patents.

Key Takeaways

Prior art and common knowledge can defeat a patent lacking a real advance.
Workshop tweaks ≠ inventive step.
Indian law demands novelty plus non-obvious technical contribution.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “NEW > KNOWN” — a patent must move from what is known to something genuinely new.

Novel idea is necessary but not enough.
Elevate beyond routine workshop skill.
Weigh prior art to test obviousness.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Did the patented utensil device show an inventive step over prior art?
Rule	Patentable only if it presents a non-obvious technical advance; workshop improvements are not inventions.
Application	Features were derivable from common knowledge and routine skill in the utensil trade.
Conclusion	Claim failed the inventive step test; patent not maintainable.

Glossary

Inventive Step: A non-obvious technical advance to a person skilled in the art.
Prior Art: All knowledge available before the patent date that informs obviousness.
Obviousness: What a skilled person could do using routine skill and known teachings.
Workshop Improvement: Minor change for convenience; not a patentable invention.

FAQs

What was the key legal test?

Whether the device showed a non-obvious advance beyond prior art and common trade knowledge.

Are safety or convenience enough?

Not by themselves. They must arise from a technical advance, not just a rearrangement or method tweak.

Who is the ‘skilled person’?

A hypothetical worker with typical skills in the field, aware of common knowledge and prior art.

Final decision?

The patent failed. The Court found no substantial inventive step over prior art.

Exam tip?

Always test for non-obvious technical advance—mere workshop improvement is not enough.