- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal set aside on both grounds and the application remanded. On inventive step the order had listed features said to be common to two prior art documents and the independent claim and then concluded that combining their teachings would be obvious, without cogent reasons, and without taking into account that the European Patent Office had granted a patent on the same prior art. The Court held that a foreign grant on the same art, while neither conclusive nor dispositive, is a material consideration. On section 3(k) the order had recorded that the claims involve no technical contribution and are merely a computer programme stored in the memory of a general purpose computer, again without reasoning and without engaging with the CRI guidelines or with Ferid Allani and the Delhi Microsoft judgment on the meaning of the words per se.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.