Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Yangtze Memory Technologie Co Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing and examination of patent applications (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments from both the petitioner and respondents (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis of the claim for divisional application (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. requirements and objections on divisional applications (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. impact of objections and waiver by the controller (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. evaluation of notice prior to patent grant (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. final dismissal of the petition by court (Para 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
W.P. (C)-IPD 10/2025
Factual Matrix
1. The Petitioner on 9th May 2021, filed Indian Patent Application No. 202127020980 [‘Parent Application’], claiming priority from PCT/CN2018/119908 dated 7th December 2018, along with a request for examination under Section 11B of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 [‘the Patents Act’], and corresponding rules of the Indian Patent Rules, 2003 [‘Patent Rules’].
2. The bibliographic details of the Parent Application are as follows:
3. The Parent Application underwent examination, and Respondent No.2/Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [‘Controller’
A divisional patent application must be filed before the grant of a parent application; filing post-grant is impermissible under Section 16(1) of the Patents Act.
A divisional application under the Patents Act requires the existence of more than one invention in the parent application; failure to demonstrate plurality results in denial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a divisional patent application must be distinct from the parent application, and the reasons for rejection of a patent application should be ....
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 discretion to allow additional written statements under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC is broad, particularly when trial has not commenced, aimed at advancing justice.
The court emphasized the importance of the Controller applying its mind to the facts and materials before it and deemed it appropriate to assume jurisdiction due to the non-application of mind by the....
A divisional patent application can be filed unilaterally by the applicant, provided it relates to more than one invention, and the Controller must assess this requirement.
Procedural irregularities in patent opposition must respect principles of natural justice, and amendments to patent claims cannot broaden their scope.
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....
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
