Back
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
The Zero Brand Zone Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents & Designs Chennai Intellectual Property – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970, prays (i) that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 12.03.2020, passed by the 2nd Respondent herein in Application No.201721043812 dated 06.12.2017 and consequently prayed to direct to issue patent; and (ii) to pass such further and other order or orders as this Court may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Background
The appellant filed Patent Application No.201721043812 on 06.12.2017 for the grant of patent for an invention titled 'Eco-friendly lamp made up of composition based on panchagavya with the combination of leaves used in traditional herbal medicine'. The said application was published on 22.06.2018. Based on a request for examination, the First Examination Report (FER) was issued on 29.06.2018. The appellant filed a response thereto on 08.08.2018. A pre-grant opposition was filed by Mr.R.A.Swaminathan on 22.08.2018. The appellant replied thereto on 23.10.2018. By communication dated 22.07.2019, a hearing was fixed on 04.09.2019. While the appellant attended the hearing, the pre-gr
The court established that inventions based on traditional knowledge are not patentable if they do not demonstrate a significant inventive step beyond known properties.
The court allowed the amendment of claims at the appellate stage and found that the invention satisfied the criteria of inventive step.
A claimed patent must demonstrate novelty and an inventive step, which cannot be established by mere derivations that lack enhanced efficacy.
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.
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 ....
Point of Law : Intellectual Property Law - Revocation of patents - Appropriateness of Bioavailability and Bioequivalency as Pre- Market Clearance Considerations” by Jane Moffitt, which opined that “a....
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 court established that a computer-related invention can be patentable if it demonstrates a technical effect that enhances system functionality, overcoming the exclusion of computer programs per s....
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
