IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.Hari Shankar, J.
Dr. Sapna Nangia - Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs – Respondent
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 10/2022
Decided On : 22-02-2023
Patents - Patent Application Rejection - Patents Act, 1970, Section 117A - device and process for obtaining individualised tactile feedback replicating breath hold of patient - Section 2(1)(ja), Section 3(i), Section 10(5)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's patent application for a device and process for obtaining individualised tactile feedback replicating breath hold of a patient was rejected by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and other objections under the Patents Act, 1970.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned order lacked sufficient reasoning and consideration of the appellant's submissions. It emphasized the seriousness of patent applications and the need for scrupulous safeguarding of intellectual property rights. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the application was remanded for reconsideration.
Issues: Lack of reasoning and consideration in the impugned order, seriousness of patent applications, safeguarding of intellectual property rights
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for thorough examination of objections and responses in patent applications, and the importance of a speaking order from the Controller. It highlighted the serious implications of patent grant or rejection and the need for careful consideration.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the appellant's application was remanded for reconsideration. The appellant was granted one more opportunity of hearing, and the Controller was directed to pass a speaking order within 8 weeks.
JUDGMENT :
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 10/2022
1. This appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 impugned order dated 29th January 2021 passed by the learned Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, whereby Application No. 201911010599 dated 19th March 2019, filed by the appellant for registration of a patent claiming a “device and process for obtaining individualised tactile feedback replicating breath hold of patient” was rejected by the learned Assistant Controller.
2. Mr. Gaurav Barathi, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is unreasoned.
3. Consequent to the filing of the aforesaid application by the appellant, First Examination Report (FER) dated 10th February 2020 was issued by the Controller of Patents in which it was alleged that the patent, for which the appellant had applied, lacked inventive step within the meaning of Section 2(1) (ja) ((ja) “inventive step” means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art;) of the Patents Act, as the claims in the patent were obvious from prior art. Two documents, D 1 and D 2 were cited as prior art by the Controller of Patents. The objection as contained in the FER may be reproduced thus:
2. The document D2 discloses In block 210, an optional breath hold can be requested from the patient. At block 212, acquisition of a new image (eg, 3DUS) is triggered. This occurs when the success parameter is appropriate. At block 214, the newly acquired image (eg, 3DUS) is registered on the baseline image. The operator then obtains a breath hold from the patient, acquires a live 3DUS of the tumor in the current view, and triggers motion compensation using the acquired 3DUS. At block 216, the registration result obtained at block 214 is employed to update the registration with the previous US image. The system performs motion compensation by aligning the live 3DUS with the baseline 3DUS and using the registration results to update the fused image. At block 218, the quality of the fusion is determined. If the quality is good, the path ends and the operator can then use the updated fusion image to vis
The seriousness of patent applications and the need for thorough examination and consideration of objections and responses.
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.
Passing of a reasoned and a speaking order is an integral part of the principle of audi alteram partem. The Controller must consider the existing knowledge and how a person skilled in the art would m....
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 ....
Informed decision-making and due application of mind are essential in adjudicating patent applications, and unreasonable delay in patent grant can discourage inventors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.