- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) No.172 of 2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal under sections 3(k) and 59 set aside for want of a speaking order. The order ran to eleven pages but reached its conclusions in two paragraphs of four or five lines, and never engaged the tabulation filed by the applicant showing that the amended claims fell within the scope of the original specification. On section 3(k) the Controller had fixed on the computer system as such rather than on the microprocessor the applicant had developed, the invention being a combination of hardware and software. The Court held that every Controller must understand they are there primarily to support an invention, and owe the inventor an explanation of why and how an invention could not be patented; because the decision is subject to statutory appeal, it is all the more necessary that orders be speaking orders.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.