Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TEJAS KARIA
Treibacher Industrie AG – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the patent application and objections (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellant regarding the controller's decision (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. arguments presented by the respondent against the appellant's claims (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. analysis of the claims and objections raised (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. court's observations on the lack of reasoning in the impugned order (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. conclusion and remand for reconsideration of the application (Para 35) |
JUDGMENT :
TEJAS KARIA, J.
INTRODUCTION
1. The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.12.2023 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (“Controller”) refusing the grant of patent in respect of the Patent Application bearing No. 201917008959 (“Application”) on the grounds that the proposed amended claims are beyond the scope of the original claims filed at the time of filing.
2. The learned Controller rejected the Application under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Act”) and lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act, and due to lack
The decision highlights that patent amendment claims must fall within the initial disclosure's scope, and a lack of a reasoned decision violates the principles of natural justice in patent law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments made to patent claims at the instance of the Controller, pursuant to the directions of the Controller, do not violate the principle....
Procedural irregularities in patent opposition must respect principles of natural justice, and amendments to patent claims cannot broaden their scope.
The permissibility of amendments to patent claims prior to the grant and the broader permissibility for such amendments were established in the judgment.
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 ....
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 court has the authority to allow a change of name under Section 151 of the CPC.
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
