Back
RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B. V. – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents and Designs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.
1. This is an appeal under section 117A of the Patents Act 1970 assailing an order dated 19 July 2021 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting the Patent Application filed by the appellants dated 7 January 2017.
2. Briefly, the appellant applied for grant of patent with regard to an invention titled “A fungicidal treatment for black sigatoka” which provides for a treatment method for black sigatoka, a leaf-spot disease in banana plants, caused by the ascomycete fungus Mycosphaerella fijiensis (Morelet) by use of Ortho-phenyphenol.
3. It is contended that the subject invention is a cost effective and environment friendly method for treatment of black sigatoka which eliminates and reduces synthesised chemical fungicides having a significant environmental impact and leaves high residue in soil and agricultural products. The invention also reduces the risk of resistance (decreased sensitivity requiring large doses) and improves the health and yield of the plant increasing in their economic value. It is further contended that
The Controller must consider the differences between prior art and the claimed invention, provide a reasoned order, and adhere to the principles of audi alteram partem.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for a reasoned decision and scrupulous adherence to principles of natural justice while rejecting patent applications, highlighting the elements of inventive s....
The Controller must provide proper reasoning for rejecting a patent application and consider the applicant's submissions, failing which violates the principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a detailed analysis of the existing knowledge and how the subject invention lacks inventiveness in light of the prior art when ....
A new form of a known substance can only be considered patentable provided the same demonstrates enhanced efficacy.
A reasoned decision is required while rejecting patent applications, considering the existing knowledge, inventive step, and how the subject invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.
The court established that an invention must demonstrate novelty and technical advancement over prior arts to be patentable, rejecting the notion of hindsight deduction in assessing inventiveness.
The court found deficiencies in the respondent's reasoning regarding patent application rejection, stressing the need for a proper evaluation of inventive step and adherence to principles of natural ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
