Back
AMIT BANSAL
Alternative Gene Expression S L – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present appeal has been filed under Section 117-A of The Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter "the Act") impugning the order dated 21st April, 2022 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents in Indian Patent Application No.201817014040 (hereinafter "subject application") filed on 12th April, 2018 for the invention titled "Expression of Recombinant Proteins in Trichoplusia Ni Pupae" (hereinafter "subject invention").
BRIEF FACTS
2. Brief facts relevant to decide the present appeal are as follows:
2.1. The appellant had filed the subject application on 12th April, 2018 at the Patent Office, New Delhi.
2.2. Subsequently, a complete specification with claims was filed with the Patent Office. Along with the complete specification, the appellant also filed a duly filled Form 18 as the request for Examination of the subject application on 7th August, 2018.
2.3. The Patent Office issued a First Examination Report (FER) on 3rd November, 2020, in terms of which, 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)
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....
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 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 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 court allowed the amendment of claims at the appellate stage and found that the invention satisfied the criteria of inventive step.
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 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
