Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
N.V. Satheesh Madhav – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. invalid patent application due to inventive step issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant argues prior art was neglected in decision. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court emphasizes the need for a thorough analysis of inventive step. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. remedial measures and considerations for fresh assessment of prior objections. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. conclusion to set aside the prior order and remand for review. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J.
1. The present appeal under Section 117A(2) of The Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter "the Act") impugns the order dated 14th September, 2018 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, whereby the appellant's application for grant of the patent bearing no.2924/DEL/2008 has been refused.
Brief Facts
2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are set out hereinafter:
I. The aforesaid patent application was filed with provisional specification on 23rd December, 2008 at the Delhi Patent Office. Subsequently, a complete specification with ten claims was filed with the Patent Office. Along with the complete specification, the appellants also filed a duly fil
The Controller must consider the differences between prior art and the claimed invention, provide a reasoned order, and adhere to the principles of audi alteram partem.
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 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 requirement for a detailed analysis of the existing knowledge and how the subject invention lacks inventiveness in light of the prior art when ....
The Controller must provide a reasoned decision on pre-grant opposition addressing all raised grounds, particularly under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), to ensure compliance with natural justice standards.
A pre-grant opposition is in the nature of an aid to examination and is not an adversarial proceeding and thus no right of the Petitioner can be said to be violated so as to invoke the extraordinary ....
The court allowed the amendment of claims at the appellate stage and found that the invention satisfied the criteria of inventive step.
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
