Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Jitendra Kohli – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. patent application challenges decision under patents act (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of amended patent claims presented (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal arguments regarding patentability and business methods (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's analysis of assistant controller's error (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's order for reconsideration of patent application (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal under section 117A Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter "Act") has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 12th June, 2020 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. Vide the said order, the Appellant's application No.3290/Del/2005 has been rejected under Section 15 of the Act.
3. The background of the case is that the Appellant has filed a patent application titled `process for conducting electronic tendering on secured platform' vide provisional application dated 7th December, 2005. The complete specification was, thereafter, filed by the Appellant on 7th December, 2006. However, the First Examination Report (hereinafter "FER") was only issued by the Respondent 10 years later on 29t
The Assistant Controller erred by not considering amended claims in a patent application, necessitating reevaluation on grounds of novelty and patentability, distinguishing between business methods a....
Point of Law : Technical advance proposed in invention is simply a method of doing business, even if it is technically smarter way of doing business and has rejected application under Section 3(k) of....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claimed invention primarily involving conducting business or organizing commercial transactions, rather than providing a technical solution ....
The court has the authority to allow a change of name under Section 151 of the CPC.
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....
The impugned order lacked proper discussion of novelty and inventive step objections under Section 2 of the Patents Act.
Amendments to patent claims are permissible to restrict claims as long as they remain within the scope of the original specification, supporting both clarity and legal compliance under Section 59.
The main legal point established is the requirement for reasoned and considered decisions by the patent office, as well as the right of the applicant to have their submissions addressed and considere....
Amendment of claims from ‘product by process’ claims to ‘process’ claims is permissible under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, subject to certain conditions.
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
