Back
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT Madras) – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents & Designs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970, praying to pass an order granting a patent in Application No. 4032/CHE/2013; to set aside the impugned order of Respondent 1 refusing registration; and a direction that the Respondent 1 shall allow the application to proceed to grant on an expedited basis.
Background
The appellant assails an order dated 20.04.2020 by which Patent Application No.4032/CHE/2013 was rejected by the Indian Patent Office. Indian Institute of Technology Madras (the appellant) filed the above-mentioned application entitled ‘METHOD OF DOPING POTASSIUM INTO AMMONIUM PERCHLORATE’ on 10.09.2013. The application was published on 25.12.2015 and the First Examination Report (FER) was issued on 01.10.2018. The FER cited prior art document D1 (US3269879) dated 30.08.1996 and raised objections on the grounds that the claimed invention lacks novelty, inventive step, and is patent-ineligible as per Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Patents Act). The appellant filed a response to the FER on 01.04.2019 amending the complete specification. The hearing letter was issued on 26.11.2019 maintaining objections under Sect
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 upheld the denial of a patent claim on grounds of lack of inventiveness, affirming that minor amendments did not confer novelty over existing prior art as per Patents Act standards.
A claimed patent must demonstrate novelty and an inventive step, which cannot be established by mere derivations that lack enhanced efficacy.
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 ....
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 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....
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....
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 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
