Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba - Appellant
Versus
Asstt. Controller of Patents and Designs - Respondent
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 210 of 2022
Decided On : 10-01-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant challenges decision denying patent application. (Para 1) |
| 2. prior arts cited failed to show inventive features. (Para 2) |
| 3. decision lacks reasoning, undermining judicial review. (Para 3) |
| 4. original decision quashed; remand for re-evaluation ordered. (Para 4 , 5) |
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 210/2022
1. By this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge decision dated 23rd December 2020 passed by learned Assistant Controller of Patents and Design, whereby Application No. 5817/DELNP/2013, filed by the appellant before the Patent office on 28th June 2013 for registration of a process patent claiming a state monitoring device was rejected.
2. The impugned decision reads thus:
DECISION
1. An application for patent bearing number 5817/DELNP/2013 was filed in Patent office on 28/06/2013. The request for examination was filed vide RQ, No. 6480/RQ-DEL/2013 dated 28/06/2013 under rule 24B of the Patents Rules, 2003(as amended). The said application was examined under sections 12 and 13 of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended) and First Examination report was issued on 16/05/2018. In response to the First Examination Report, applicant's agent submitted its reply on 13/11/2018.
2. After considering the reply filed in response to the first examination report by the applicant's agent and the report of the examiner on such reply, it was observed that the said patent application was not in order for grant. Keeping in view the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended) and with a view to provide natural justice to the applicant, a hearing was offered to the agent of the applicant dated 14/07/2020.
3. The intimation of said hearing (hearing notice) was sent to applicant's agent through e-mail along with the objections which were found outstanding in the application:
*****
4. In view of claims made in written submission following observations with respect to instant invention made:
"The invention of the present application performs monitoring of a process in a plant. So, the present application completely differs in contents from the document D1 that monitors the state of a process of a program as claimed in the written submission, cited prior art D2 discloses a monitoring device 1 displays a trend graph and a radar chart based on the measurement values collected from the water treatment plant 2 by the measurement value collection device 3. Here, the measurement value collection device 3 collects measurement values indicating the operation state of the equipment from the water treatment plant 2, and stores the collected measurement values in the measurement value data list file F-1 in time series (paragraph [0008], figure 1: D2).
The alleged invention further claims "calculating, by a calculation unit (16), diagnosis data from two or more measurement variables acquired from a monitoring target (30), and to detect an abnormality of the monitoring target (30) from the diagnosis data" in view of this D1 discloses a fault-tolerant method and system for a distributed program, which can sequentially start a program process deployed on different fault-tolerant clients. When any process with a dependency relationship crashes, the fault-tolerant server can The configured policies perform corresponding operations, and the fault-tolerant client only needs to use the existing monitoring program to perform monitoring, report the status of the process, and receive and execute instructions sent by the fault-tolerant server or issued by the operation and maintenance personnel. Start the above processes in order to ensure that the work can proceed normally (paragraph [0007]: Dl).
Further alleged invention claims to display the monitored/diagnosis data, In view of this D2 discloses the monitoring device 1 displays a trend graph and a radar chart based on the measurement values collected from the water treatment plant 2 by the measurement value collection device 3(paragraph [0008], figure 1: D2).
D1 further discloses a fault tole
A patent application must comply with inventive step requirements and judicial decisions must contain clear reasoning to uphold legal scrutiny.
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.
Patent examination under Chapter IV (mandatory Section 14 hearing) and pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) (Chapter V) are distinct parallel processes; refusal requires Section 14 hearing and Se....
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....
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
