Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Nippon Steel Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal under section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter, "Act") has been filed by the Appellant-Nippon Steel Corporation challenging the impugned order dated 5th March, 2012 passed under Section 15 of the Act.
3. Vide the impugned order, Appellant's application bearing no. 435/DEL/2006 for grant of a patent in respect of an invention titled "Non-Oriented Electrical Steel Excellent in Magnetic Properties in Rolling Direction and Method of Production of Same" (hereinafter, `subject invention'), was rejected by the Respondent-Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs.
4. The present appeal was, initially, filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (`IPAB') in 2012 and was, thereafter, transferred to this Court after the enactment of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.
5. The Appellant filed an application for grant of a patent on 16th February, 2006 with priority date of 23rd February, 2005. The first examination report (FER) was issued on 23rd June, 2010 as per which certain objections were raised in respect of novelty, inventive step, etc.
6. A reply dated 1s
The impugned order lacked proper discussion of novelty and inventive step objections under Section 2 of the Patents Act.
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 duty of the ld. Asst. Controller to consider the objections and pass a reasoned order, and the purpose of Rule 28(7) of the Patent Rules, 2003 in capturing the submissions made during the course ....
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 importance of accurate references to prior art documents and the need to ensure a fair and accurate consideration of patent applications.
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....
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
