Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Syngenta Limited – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents And Designs – Respondent
ORDER (Oral)
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The impugned order dated 11 October 2017 rejects the Divisional Application No. 7059/DELNP/2011 dated 15 September 2011, enumerating from parent Application No. 6114/DELNP/2005 dated 28 December 2005 for a product "Agrochemical concentrate comprising an adjuvant and a hydrotrope" on the ground that the claims in the Parent Application did not contain any claim relating to plurality of distinct inventions. As such, on the ground that the claims in the Divisional Application travel beyond the claims in the Parent Application, the Divisional Application was rejected.
2. By judgment dated 13 October 2023, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has decided an issue referred by me, as I found myself unable to agree with the view expressed by a coordinate Bench in Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. The Controller of Patents, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3777, the Division Bench has held that the requirement of "plurality of inventions would have to be tested based upon the disclosure made in either the provisional or complete specifications".
3. In that view of the matter, Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent- Controller of Patents and Designs
The requirement of 'plurality of inventions' should be tested based upon the disclosure made in either the provisional or complete specifications.
A divisional patent application must be filed before the grant of a parent application; filing post-grant is impermissible under Section 16(1) of the Patents Act.
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 a divisional patent application must be distinct from the parent application, and the reasons for rejection of a patent application should be ....
A patent adjudication must be supported by a reasoned order to ensure fairness and facilitate judicial review.
The requirement of associated hardware being novel and inventive is no longer a ground for rejection of patent applications for computer software.
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
