Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SANJEEV NARULA
Blackberry Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
I.A. No........./2023 (to be numbered)
1. Registry is directed to number the afore-noted application.
2. Considering the fact that there has been only a short delay in filing the present appeal, application is allowed and the delay is condoned.
3. Disposed of.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 301/2022
4. Petitioner's Indian Patent Application No. 2170/DEL/2008 for the invention "Text Selection Using a Touch Sensitive Screen of a Handheld Mobile Communication Device" [hereinafter, "subject invention"], was filed on 16th September, 2008, claiming priority since 26th October, 2007 from a corresponding European application. [European Application No.: 07119388.2.] First Examination Report was issued on 28th August, 2014, to which, Appellant responded on 13th March, 2015. Hearing was scheduled after four years on 23rd October, 2019, whereafter,
The main legal point established is the requirement for proper reasoning in patent rejection orders, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for objective criteria in decision-maki....
Informed decision-making and due application of mind are essential in adjudicating patent applications, and unreasonable delay in patent grant can discourage inventors.
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.
Proper application of mind and compliance with quasi-judicial functions are essential in patent-related decisions.
The seriousness of patent applications and the need for thorough examination and consideration of objections and responses.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for thorough consideration of amended claims and legal submissions, particularly in relation to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, an....
A patent adjudication must be supported by a reasoned order to ensure fairness and facilitate judicial review.
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
Listen Article