- Case number
- Controller of Patents and DesignsCMA(PT).85/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Both grounds of refusal were unreasoned. On inventive step the Controller extracted claim 1 and concluded that the person skilled in the art could choose the features of the prior art and arrive at the technical features claimed, with no explanation of how. On unity of invention under section 10(5) he recorded that the claims did not relate to a single invention or inventive concept, again without reasons and without meeting the explanation offered.
Disposition
Allowed. Matter remitted for fresh consideration by a different Patent Controller.
Also listed as
- Mitsubishi Electric Corporation V. Controller of Patents and Designs(T)CMA(PT).85/2023
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.