- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 9/2025
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal set aside and remanded for de novo consideration of the inventive step objection. The Court held that the scope of claim 1 was determinable by reading it with the dependent claims, the description and the drawings, so the objection under section 10(5) did not hold. The unreasoned finding that claim 1 lacked technical advancement over D1 and D2 required fresh analysis applying the five step obviousness test in F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla, recently reaffirmed in Tapas Chatterjee.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.