- Case number
- CMA(PT)/15/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal of a divisional application under section 16 set aside as unreasoned. The order drew its conclusion by referring back to the hearing notice, which itself recorded only that the parent did not contain more than one invention and that the features of the divisional overlapped with those claimed in the parent, with no basis recorded for either conclusion. The applicant had relied on the written opinion of the International Searching Authority on the corresponding PCT application, which concluded that it contained four separate inventive concepts and did not meet the requirement of unity of invention, and the Controller failed to engage with that at all. The order also recorded that the applicant had not replied to a point in the hearing notice when the written submissions contained a detailed response to it.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.