- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 167/2022
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Sanjeev Narula
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal under section 10(4)(a) set aside because that objection was raised for the first time in the impugned order itself, having appeared in neither the First Examination Report nor the hearing notice. A hearing does not absolve the Controller of the obligation to communicate all objections before refusing, and the applicant's right to due process was violated. The argument that the hearing notice had raised a scope objection did not save the order, because it never cited section 10(4)(a) and the applicant had amended claim 1 in response to a different point. The Court added an observation of general application: because orders under section 15 are subject to appeal, and because much of a patent's limited term is spent before the Controller, it is advisable for the Controller to decide all grounds of objection even where the application fails on one, so that an appellate court can assess patentability if that ground is overturned. Where grounds are interlinked with technical ones this may not be feasible, and an observation to that effect should then be recorded.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.