Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JYOTI SINGH
Grains Research and Development Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of patent application (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments presented by appellant against the impugned order (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. respondent's arguments in defense of the impugned order (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. court's observations on the procedural errors (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. findings and issues regarding the respondent's reasoning (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. remand of the matter for fresh consideration (Para 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
JYOTI SINGH, J.
1. This appeal is filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 117A of The Patents Act, 1970 (‘1970 Act’) seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 09.05.2024, whereby Respondent has refused to grant patent under Section 15 of 1970 Act in respect of Indian Patent Application bearing No. 201617030967 filed as PCT Application No. PCT/AU2015/05110 on 17.03.2015 on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2 (1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3 (d) of 1970 Act.
2. To the extent necessary, the factual matrix as brought forth in the appeal is that one PB IP Ltd. filed the PCT Application No. PCT/AU2015/05110 on 17.03.2
The court found deficiencies in the respondent's reasoning regarding patent application rejection, stressing the need for a proper evaluation of inventive step and adherence to principles of natural ....
A claimed patent must demonstrate novelty and an inventive step, which cannot be established by mere derivations that lack enhanced efficacy.
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 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 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.
The court allowed the amendment of claims at the appellate stage and found that the invention satisfied the criteria of inventive step.
Passing of a reasoned and a speaking order is an integral part of the principle of audi alteram partem. The Controller must consider the existing knowledge and how a person skilled in the art would m....
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
