Back
SANJEEV NARULA
Microsoft Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral):
I.A. No. 5882/2023 (under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC"] seeking change of name of Appellant from `Microsoft Corporation' to `Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC')
1. For the grounds and reasons stated therein, the application is allowed, and the name of the Appellant is changed to `Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC.'.
2. Amended memo of parties is taken on record and Registry is directed to reflect the change in their records.
3. Disposed of.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 106/2022
4. The present appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 [hereinafter "Act"] impugns order dated 05th March, 2012 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design [Respondent] whereby Appellant's Indian Patent Application No. 487/DELNP/2006 titled as "ADVANCED BI-DIRECTIONAL PREDICTIVE CODING OF INTERLACED VIDEO" filed on 30th January, 2006 [hereinafter "subject patent"], has been rejected [hereinafter "impugned order"] under Section 15 of the Act.
5. Ms. Vindhya S. Mani, counsel for Appellant, argues that impugned order provides insufficient and insignificant reasoning to support the conclusion. No thoughtful analysis has been appli
The court has the authority to allow a change of name under Section 151 of the CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a divisional patent application must be distinct from the parent application, and the reasons for rejection of a patent application should be ....
Amendments to patent claims are permissible to restrict claims as long as they remain within the scope of the original specification, supporting both clarity and legal compliance under Section 59.
Amendment of claims from ‘product by process’ claims to ‘process’ claims is permissible under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, subject to certain conditions.
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.
Point of Law : Technical advance proposed in invention is simply a method of doing business, even if it is technically smarter way of doing business and has rejected application under Section 3(k) of....
The decision highlights that patent amendment claims must fall within the initial disclosure's scope, and a lack of a reasoned decision violates the principles of natural justice in patent law.
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
