J U D G M E N T

30.07.2024 MINI PUSHKARNA, J:

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970 (“the Act”) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), against order dated 24th March, 2022 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs under Section 15 of the Act, in the Patent Application No. 3679/DELNP/2015 (“Patent Application”). By way of the impugned order, the claimed invention of the appellant has been rejected on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step under Sections 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(ja) of the Act. The claim has further been rejected on the ground of lack of sufficiency of disclosure, as provided under Section 10 of the Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.1 The appellant had filed the patent application on 30th April, 2015 for the invention titled “Preparation of Live Vaccines”. The patent application claimed a method for generation of live vaccine containing stable bacteria carrying at least three attenuating mutations and a vaccine containing bacteria obtained by said method. The original applicant listed on the patent application was „Lohmann Animal Health Gmbh‟. Subsequently, on 18th September, 2018, rights in the patent application were assigned to the appellant herein.

2.2 The patent application was examined, and the First Examination Report (“FER”) was issued on 5th December, 2018, in which various objections were raised on behalf of the Patent Office.

2.3 The appellant filed a detailed response to the FER on 3rd June, 2019, along with amended claims.

2.4 The Patent Office issued a hearing notice dated 28th February, 2020, scheduling the hearing for 12th March, 2020, wherein, certain objections in the FER as regards lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) and (ja) and sufficiency of disclosure under Section 10 of the Act were maintained.

2.5 Upon request of the appellant, the hearing was adjourned to 10th April, 2020 by notice dated 12th March, 2020. Due to lockdown caused by Covid-19, the hearing was further adjourned to 21st September, 2020, by notice dated 19th August, 2020. The appellant again requested for adjournment owing to Covid-19. Thereafter, the respondent adjourned the hearing to 16th August, 2021 by notice dated 30th July, 2021.

2.6 The appellant made extensive oral arguments at the time of hearing. Detailed written submissions, along with amended set of claims, were filed by the agent for the appellant on 30th August, 2021.

2.7 The respondent, vide the impugned decision, refused to grant the patent in respect of the patent application. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the first instance, without going into technical aspect of the matter, submitted that the matter be remanded back, as the impugned order has been passed mechanically, without any application of mind. Attention of this Court was drawn to the impugned order of the respondent dated 24th March, 2022 and the final hearing notice dated 30th July, 2021, to submit that the impugned order is a verbatim reproduction of the hearing notice.

4. It is submitted that the respondent has copied and pasted the objections without applying his mind to the submissions made by the appellant at the time of hearing, as well as in the post hearing written submissions. The respondent has not given any reasons and has not passed a speaking order for rejecting the patent application, which has been dismissed, by a single sentence claiming that the said submissions could not justify the objections. Thus, it is submitted that the matter be remanded back for fresh consideration.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent justified the impugned order. It is submitted that the patent application has rightly been refused by the respondent office, citing lack of novelty and inventive step along with lack of sufficiency of disclosure.

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.

7. Consider