Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Dow Agrosciences Llc – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. M/s Dow Agrosciences LLC has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order dated 14th July, 2020 by which the application for grant of a patent for patent application bearing No. 9212//DELNP/2012 titled `Stabilized Agricultural Oil Dispersions' (hereinafter `subject patent') has been refused under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter `the Act'). By the said impugned order, the Appellant's application for patent has been refused on several grounds including lack of inventive step on the basis of various prior art documents. The subject patent application was filed before the Indian Patent Office (IPO) on 25th October, 2012 as a national phase application and was published under Section 11A of the Act on 19th February, 2016. The priority date of the subject patent application is 26th April, 2010.
4. A first examination report (FER) dated 29th December, 2017 was issued raising objections relating to lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act, citing three prior art documents, non-patentability under Section 3(e)
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 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 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 Controller must provide proper reasoning for rejecting a patent application and consider the applicant's submissions, failing which violates the principles of natural justice.
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 impugned order lacked proper discussion of novelty and inventive step objections under Section 2 of the Patents Act.
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....
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
