Back
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Ollos Biotech Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Omega Ecotech Products India Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer in OP (PT) No.1 of 2023: Original Petition (Patents) filed under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 to revoke Patent No.411774, which was granted by the 2nd respondent on 17 November 2022 and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit considering the facts and circumstances of the case.)
Background
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to revoke the patent granted by the second respondent to the first respondent inter alia on the grounds that the invention lacks novelty, inventive step and is patent ineligible under Sections 3(d) and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Patents Act).
2. The first respondent had applied for a patent for an invention titled 'Multi-stage aerobic bio-composter kitchen bin and a method of composting thereof' claiming priority from 30 March 2017. In the background section of the complete specification, the petitioner identified the problems associated with conventional methods of disposal of organic waste, such as pollution of groundwater, greenhouse gas emission, leachate, foul odour, et cetera, and, thereafter, dealt with the prior art in composting in the form of about four patents. After stating that the prior
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of novelty and inventive step under the Patents Act, 1970, for granting and revoking patents.
The subject invention involved new features and improvements over existing devices, such as specific electric fields, specific gap between conducting plates, and use of multiple plates within a decon....
The court established that an invention must demonstrate novelty and technical advancement over prior arts to be patentable, rejecting the notion of hindsight deduction in assessing inventiveness.
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....
The court established that inventions based on traditional knowledge are not patentable if they do not demonstrate a significant inventive step beyond known properties.
An invention must demonstrate novelty and an inventive step, and cannot be merely a known process that does not result in a new product or employ a new reactant to qualify for patent protection.
The novelty of a patent must be established by clear prior art disclosures, with emphasis on systematic analysis distinguishing novelty from non-obviousness.
A claimed invention must demonstrate inventive step and technical advancement; combinations deemed obvious must avoid hindsight bias, treating knowledge available at the priority date effectively.
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
