- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 395/2022
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Prathiba M. Singh
- Outcome
- Dismissed
Headnote
The appeal was dismissed with costs of one lakh rupees. The appellant told the Court that the corresponding European application had been abandoned when in fact the European Patent Office had refused it for want of novelty and inventive step, and had refused a divisional of it as well. Presenting wrong facts and failing to disclose both refusals was held to be a failure to comply with the disclosure requirements of the Act. The judgment is also the fullest collection in the digest of the tests for inventive step: obvious to try, problem and solution, could-would, teaching-suggestion-motivation which is not to be applied narrowly, the four Windsurfing steps, Pozzoli as modified by Jacob LJ, and the five-step test of the Division Bench in F. Hoffmann-La Roche. None of them is to be applied in a straitjacketed manner, and more than one may be combined.
Disposition
Dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000, half to be deposited with the office of the CGPDTM and half paid to the Central Government Standing Counsel.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.