- Case number
- CMA(PT) No.33 of 2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Allowed
Headnote
Refusal set aside where the Controller had cited the applicants' own earlier, withdrawn application as prior art D1 under section 13(1)(b). The earlier application had been withdrawn well within the period allowed by section 11A(3)(c) read with Rule 24, so it should never have been published at all, and the later filing of Forms 9 and 18A for it was both out of time and incapable of reviving a withdrawn application. The Patent Office ought to have sought clarification as to which application was to be processed. Applying actus curiae neminem gravabit, which binds every statutory authority deciding the rights of a citizen, an innocent party cannot suffer for the error of a quasi-judicial body, so the publication and citation of D1 were invalid and the novelty and inventive step objections founded on it could not stand. On section 3(k) the invention combined hardware and software with a visible technical advancement under the 2017 Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions, so the objection did not apply. Remaining objections as to clarity and breadth were formal and curable.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.