Back
AMIT BANSAL
Vexim – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BANSAL, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) impugning the order dated 24th July, 2017 passed by the Assistant Comptroller of patents rejecting the Indian Patent application no. 7174/DELNP/2006 (hereinafter “subject application”) titled “Methods and Apparatuses for Bone Restoration” (hereinafter “subject invention”).
2. The impugned order was served on the appellant on 28th July, 2017 and the three months period provided for filing an appeal expired on 28th October, 2017. The present appeal was filed on 29th January, 2018 with a delay of 93 days.
3. For the reasons stated in the application for the condonation of delay, the same is allowed and the delay in filing of the present appeal is condoned.
4. Insofar as the merits of the appeal are concerned, brief facts relevant to decide the present appeal are as follows:
4.2. The Patent Office issued a First Examination Report (FER) dated 4th September, 2013 in terms
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 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 ....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a patent application should be based on the objections raised in the hearing notice, and the decision should not exceed the s....
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 court emphasized the necessity for a detailed analysis on inventive steps in patent applications, ruling that mere conclusions without discourse on prior art are insufficient for rejecting patent....
The impugned order lacked proper discussion of novelty and inventive step objections under Section 2 of the Patents Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of accurate references to prior art documents and the need to ensure a fair and accurate consideration of patent applications.
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
