Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
Navya Network Inc., 108, Trowbridge Street, #1 Canbrudgem N/a 02138, United States of America, Through its Authorized Representative Ms. Gitika Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office, IPR Buildings, SIDCO Plot GST Road, Guindy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims relate to algorithm (Para 3) |
| 2. rejection on business method (Para 4) |
| 3. lack of inventive step (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. claimed invention features (Para 7) |
| 5. prior art d3 analysis (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. prior art d2 analysis (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. prior art d1 analysis (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 8. obvious to psita (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 9. order confirmed (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
(SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.)
This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.03.2023 dismissing Patent Application No.951/CHENP/2013. The said application was filed by the appellant herein for grant of patent for an invention titled “TREATMENT RELATED QUANTITATIVE DECISION ENGINE”.
2. Upon request by the appellant, the respondent issued a First Examination Report (FER) dated 21.11.2019. In the FER, objections were raised inter alia on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, exclusion under Section 3(k), lack of clarity and conciseness under Section 10(5) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Patents Act). The appellant responded to the FER on 21.08.2020 and submitted amended claims. Pursuant to hearing notice dated 13.12.2021, the appellant submitted written submissions on 22.02.2022 by enclosing current claim
An invention must demonstrate novelty and an inventive step to be patentable; mere refinement of existing methods does not suffice.
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....
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 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 claimed invention presents an inventive step over prior art by simplifying complex sensor data communication, lacking obviousness per Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.
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
