- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) 73/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
A refusal for want of inventive step was set aside for recording a conclusion on the cited art without engaging the applicant's answer to it. Two observations were directed to be taken into account on remand: that more than four decades separated the cited documents from the priority date, which is not decisive of non-obviousness but is a relevant consideration; and that a grant elsewhere on the same prior art is material though non-determinative, the requirement of non-obviousness being substantially the same across jurisdictions.
Disposition
Set aside and remanded for reconsideration. No opinion expressed on the merits.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.