- Case number
- CMA(PT)/1/2024
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal under section 3(m) set aside. The Controller had reasoned that the applicant developed only a methodology and no product, so the method was merely theoretical. The Court held that section 3(m) excludes a mere scheme, rule or method of performing a mental act, or a method of playing a game, and that on the Controller's construction every method claim would stand excluded, when the Act extends protection to process claims as well as product claims. A claim to an inventive process comprising a sequence of steps cannot be characterised as a method of performing a mental act and does not fall within the provision.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.