Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Controller General of Patents Designs – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Background
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd-seeking inter alia, an order to set aside the decision dated 9th February, 2021 (hereinafter `impugned order') issued by the office of the Respondent-Controller General of Patents and Designs. The impugned order refused the application for grant of a patent titled `Air Decontamination Assembly' bearing Application No. 201741016833, filed on 12th May, 2017 (hereinafter `subject patent'), under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter `the Act') on the ground that the claimed subject matter of the subject patent does not constitute an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of the Act.
2. The Appellant company claims to be a start-up recognized by the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC) and supported by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India and the Karnataka State Government for various innovative products. The details of the funding and support received by the Appellant for the development of the product using the subject patent, as mentioned in the appeal are as follows:
"a) From the Government of India through the Departmen
The subject invention involved new features and improvements over existing devices, such as specific electric fields, specific gap between conducting plates, and use of multiple plates within a decon....
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....
An invention must demonstrate novelty and an inventive step, and cannot be merely a known process that does not result in a new product or employ a new reactant to qualify for patent protection.
A claimed patent must demonstrate novelty and an inventive step, which cannot be established by mere derivations that lack enhanced efficacy.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of novelty and inventive step under the Patents Act, 1970, for granting and revoking patents.
The court established that inventions based on traditional knowledge are not patentable if they do not demonstrate a significant inventive step beyond known properties.
The court allowed the amendment of claims at the appellate stage and found that the invention satisfied the criteria of inventive step.
The seriousness of patent applications and the need for thorough examination and consideration of objections and responses.
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
