Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tejas Karia, J
Steigerwald Arzneimittelwerk Gmbh – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the patent application and the history of the patent controller's rejection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding the novelty and inventive step of the process method. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis of the technical methodology vs. existing prior art. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. requirement for reasoned analysis of obviousness and the 'could-would' test for inventive step. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 5. remand of the application for fresh consideration due to lack of adequate reasoning. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
INRTODUCTION
1. The present Appeal is filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1907 (“Act”) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 25.07.2017 (“Impugned Order”) whereby the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (“Respondent / Controller”) refused to grant the patent on the ground of lack of novelty and inventive step as required under Section 2(1)(j) of the Act.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The Indian Patent Application No. 1285/DEL/2009 titled as
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
