- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 209/2022
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- C. Hari Shankar
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Divisional application refused as not relating to a distinct invention compared with the allowed claims of the parent, and so illegitimate ab initio, with a further finding of lack of inventive step. Set aside because the section 16 objection appeared in neither the First Examination Report nor the hearing notice. To the Registry's answer that it is common practice to raise new objections during the hearing and then allow the applicant to respond, the Court held that such a procedure is not sustainable in law: objections must be restricted to those given to the applicant in writing, whether in the First Examination Report or the hearing notice, and if additional objections arise during the hearing the Patent Office must at the very least set them out in writing and give the applicant an opportunity to respond in writing.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.