Mumbai, April 20 -- The Bombay High Court has quashed orders denying a patent to US-based Huntington Alloys Corporation, holding that the authorities' conclusion that the invention was linked to atomic energy was unjustified and could not be sustained in law. The company had moved the court against a November 2020 decision of the deputy controller of patents and a subsequent April 2021 order of the Department of Atomic Energy, both of which refused its application for the invention of an "Ultra Supercritical Boiler Header Alloy and Method of Preparation". At the core of the dispute was whether the invention fell within the restricted domain of atomic energy under the Patents Act. The firm maintained that its technology-an alloy developed for high-temperature boiler systems-had no nexus with atomic energy. The proposed alloy, comprising nickel, cobalt and chromium, is designed for use in boiler header pipes operating under extreme temperatures. The company argued that its composition enhances durability, strength and weldability, making it suitable for long-term industrial use. During the hearing, the company argued that the central government lacks jurisdiction in the matter, and that the rejection was unreasoned. It further claimed that the invention had no connection to atomic energy and therefore did not attract the prohibition under the Patents Act. Opposing the plea, the centre argued that it retains exclusive powers over atomic energy-related matters. It contended that the inclusion of elements such as niobium and tantalum brought the invention within that scope, warranting rejection of the patent. A division bench of justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande, however, found the decisions to be legally deficient, noting that they were passed without adequate reasoning. The court stressed that recorded reasons are the heartbeat of any order, as they ensure transparency and demonstrate due application of mind. The bench further observed that patent applicants must be given an opportunity to amend their claims to address objections-an option that was not extended in this case. Setting aside the orders, the court directed the authorities to reconsider the application afresh and pass a well-reasoned decision within a reasonable timeframe....