- Case number
- CMA(PT) No.35 of 2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Divisional application refused on the ground that its claims did not flow from the claims of the parent, the Controller relying on the Single Judge decision in Boehringer Ingelheim. Set aside: that decision stands overruled by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs. Section 16 requires only that the divisional application flow from the **specification** in the parent application, and does not require that the claims of the divisional flow from the claims of the parent. The foundational reason for the Controller's conclusion having gone, the conclusion could not stand. The other grounds of objection, on inventive step and on clarity, were left undecided by the impugned order.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.