Back
AMIT BANSAL
N. V. Satheesh Madhav – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BANSAL, J.
1. The present appeal under Section 117A(2) of The Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter “the Act”) impugns the order dated 14th September, 2018 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, whereby the appellant’s application for grant of the patent bearing no. 2924/DEL/2008 has been refused.
Brief Facts
2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are set out hereinafter:
(II) A First Examination Report (FER) was issued on 30th March, 2017, in terms of which, an objection was raised that the claims lack inventive step in view of the prior-art documents referred to as D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 and D6 and therefore, do not constitute an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of the Act. The FER also raised an objection under Section 3(h) of the Act stating that the subject
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 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 allowed the amendment of claims at the appellate stage and found that the invention satisfied the criteria of inventive step.
A claimed patent must demonstrate novelty and an inventive step, which cannot be established by mere derivations that lack enhanced efficacy.
A pre-grant opposition is in the nature of an aid to examination and is not an adversarial proceeding and thus no right of the Petitioner can be said to be violated so as to invoke the extraordinary ....
The Controller must provide a reasoned decision on pre-grant opposition addressing all raised grounds, particularly under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), to ensure compliance with natural justice standards.
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
