- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) 165/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
A hearing notice issued roughly a fortnight before the hearing introduced a fourth cited document and directed that the three already cited be read along with it, leaving the applicant no real time to respond concretely. The order was then too cryptic to disclose any line of reasoning, with no discussion from which the Court could tell which of the cited documents was said to render the invention obvious.
Disposition
Allowed. Matter remanded for de novo consideration by some other Controller.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.