- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) 108/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
The prior arts were discussed but never in a manner distinguishing the claimed invention, the written submissions setting out those distinctions were not considered, and the US and European patents granted for the same invention went unexamined. The Controller held the applicant's explanation misinterpreted without saying how it was misinterpreted.
Disposition
Remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.