- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) 168/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal under sections 2(1)(j) and 3(k) set aside. The Controller applied the novel hardware requirement drawn from the 2016 CRI Guidelines, which the 2017 Guidelines had already replaced, and overlooked that claim 1 itself recited at least one processor. On novelty, the order asserted that identified paragraphs of the cited document dealt with a scrambling sequence, which the Court could not find in them at all.
Disposition
Allowed. Impugned order set aside and the matter remanded to a different Controller.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.