Proper application of mind and compliance with quasi-judicial functions are essential in patent-related decisions.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. This is yet another case in which the manner in which the impugned order dated 8th October 2020, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, shocks the conscience of the court.

2. Application No. 8285/DELNP/2007 was filed by the appellant on 26th October 2007 for grant of a patent in respect of "Bone Fixation Apparatus".

3. Consequent to filing of the application, First Examination Report (FER) was issued by the Office of the Controller of Patents on 30th November 2015. The appellant filed its reply to the FER on 1st July 2016.

4. Consequent thereto, notice of hearing was issued by the Assistant Controller General of Patents (ACGP) on 14th November 2019, and hearing was granted to the appellant on 17th December 2019, whereafter the appellant filed written submissions on 31st December 2019.

5. The impugned order has come to be passed, by the ACGP on 8th October 2020. To appreciate how the impugned order has been written and passed, it would be appropriate that a screenshot of the order is provided:

[IMG]

[IMG]

[IMG]

[IMG]

6. Clearly, instead of taking the trouble of typing out the order, the ACGP has merely cut and paste paragraphs from documents.

7. Though such cutting and pasting is itself disquieting, the Court would not have taken serious note thereof, had the ACGP condescended to supplement the cut and pasted paragraphs with his own reasoning, displaying some minimal application of mind.

8. Sadly, that is lacking.

9. Mr. Vineet Rohilla, learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the objections contained in the FER were reproduced, verbatim, in the notice of hearing dated 14th November 2019 and again stand reproduced, verbatim, in paras 2 and 6 of the impugned order. There has been no consideration, whatsoever, of the reply filed by the appellant either in response to the FER or consequent to the notice of hearing issued by the ACGP.

10. If one were to de-construct the impugned order, the following position emerges:

(i) Paras 1 and 2 are directly cut and pasted from the FER dated 30th November 2015. It may be noted that the appellant's application has come to be rejected on the basis of objections contained in para 2 i.e. for want of inventive step vis-a-vis prior art D1 and D2, and not on the basis of the objection contained in para 1.

(ii) Para 3 is a formal paragraph noting the fact that the hearing was conducted and written submissions were filed.

(iii) Para 4 first cuts and pastes the claim contained in the appellant's application and, thereafter, cuts and pastes the response filed by the appellant to the FER.

(iv) Para 5 is incomprehensible. It starts by saying that the ACGP did not find the submission of the appellant persuasive in view of what is supposed to be following thereafter. Thereafter, however, the ACGP has merely cut and pasted Claim 1 from the appellant's application.

(v) Ironically, para 6 of the impugned order starts with the recital that the oral argument and written submission of the appellant were carefully considered. Thereafter, the impugned order declares, without prelude or preface, that the claim of the appellant did not comply with Section 2(1)(j)^1[2. Definitions and interpretation. -

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(j) "invention" means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application; ^] of the Patents Act. Why, is left for anybody to guess. The paragraph thereafter once again cuts and pastes the objection contained in the FER. The objection, therefore, has been cut and pasted twice, firstly in

(vi) The impugned order, thereafter, again states that the claim of the appellant was deficient in respect of Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act.

11. Thereafter, somewhat strangely, the impugned order states that the appellant's application was also liable to be rejected under Section 10(4) and Section 59 of the Patents Act, neither of which provision was ever raised as an