Question

Which of the following statement is right?

• A. An invention must not possess utility for the grant of patent. No valid patent can be granted for an invention devoid of utility.
• B. An invention must possess utility for the grant of patent. No valid patent can be granted for an invention devoid of utility.
• C. An invention must possess utility for the grant of patent. Valid patent can be granted for an invention devoid of utility.
• D. An invention must not necessarily possess utility for the grant of patent. Valid patent can be granted for an invention devoid of utility.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The Correct Option is (D): An invention must not necessarily possess utility for the grant of patent. Valid patent can be granted for an invention devoid of utility.

Answer 2

The question presents four statements about whether utility is a requirement for the grant of a patent in India, and asks which one is legally accurate. This turns on the difference between utility in the everyday sense and "capable of industrial application", the actual statutory phrase used in the Patents Act, 1970.

1. An invention must not possess utility for the grant of patent. No valid patent can be granted for an invention devoid of utility: this statement is self-contradictory, it says utility must not be possessed and in the same breath says a patent devoid of utility is invalid, so it cannot be the intended answer even before checking the law.
2. An invention must possess utility for the grant of patent. No valid patent can be granted for an invention devoid of utility: this treats utility as a hard, freestanding requirement the way some other patent systems do. Indian law, however, does not use the word utility as an independent ground of rejection, it uses "capable of industrial application" under Section 2(1)(j) read with Section 2(1)(ac), a narrower, formal test about whether the invention can be made or used in an industry, not a value judgment about whether it is beneficial or commercially useful.
3. An invention must possess utility for the grant of patent. Valid patent can be granted for an invention devoid of utility: this is internally inconsistent, it demands utility as a requirement and then allows a patent without it, so the two halves of the statement contradict each other.
4. An invention must not necessarily possess utility for the grant of patent. Valid patent can be granted for an invention devoid of utility: this reflects the actual Indian position. The statutory test for patentability under Section 2(1)(j) is novelty, inventive step, and capability of industrial application, not a separate finding that the invention is genuinely useful. As long as the invention can be made or used in an industry, it can be patented even if it turns out to have limited real world usefulness, utility in that broader sense is not itself a ground the Controller uses to refuse a patent.

Once the internally contradictory options are set aside, the fourth statement is the only one that both makes logical sense on its own and correctly reflects that Indian patent law does not impose a strict, freestanding utility requirement the way some other jurisdictions do.

So the correct answer is an invention must not necessarily possess utility for the grant of patent, and a valid patent can be granted for an invention devoid of utility.