Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
Caleb Suresh Motupalli Rottelailu House of Bread – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Factual Background:
The appellant assails an order dated 27.10.2021 issued by the respondent in the review petition filed by the appellant under Section 77(1) (f) and (g) of the Patents Act, 1970 ('Patents Act') for reviewing the Controller's decision on 21.04.2021 in respect of the appellant's application for grant of patent (Indian Patent Application No. 5606/CHENP/2012).
2. The appellant filed the subject patent application on 27.06.2012 as a national phase application of PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Patent Application No. PCT/IN2010/000669 dated 08.10.2010 claiming priority from US Application Nos. 61/290, 104 dated 24.12.2009 in respect of the invention titled 'Necktie Persona-Extender/Environment-integrator and method for Super-Augmenting a Persona to Manifest a Pan-Environment Super-Cyborg'.
3. The application was originally filed with 13 claims. The First Examination Report (FER) was issued on 30.8.2018 raising objections under Sections 2(1)(j) with respect to inventive step, industrial applicability, 3(k), 3(m), 10(5), 10(4) of the Patents Act. In response to the FER, the appellant submitted its reply on 27.02.2019 deleting claims 6-13 and submitting amended clai
The patent application was rejected due to lack of enablement, clarity, and inventive step, failing to meet statutory requirements under the Patents Act.
The novelty of a patent must be established by clear prior art disclosures, with emphasis on systematic analysis distinguishing novelty from non-obviousness.
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 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 court has the authority to allow a change of name under Section 151 of the CPC.
The decision highlights that patent amendment claims must fall within the initial disclosure's scope, and a lack of a reasoned decision violates the principles of natural justice in patent law.
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 ....
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
