- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 13/2024
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Amit Bansal
- Outcome
- Dismissed
Headnote
Appeal dismissed and a refusal for want of inventive step upheld, which makes this a useful counterweight to the many appeals in which refusals are set aside. The Court held that the Controller had rightly analysed the application against the cited prior art and the data in the complete specification, and had rightly concluded that the claimed improvement was obvious to the person skilled in the art and showed no technical advancement. It rejected the argument that a corresponding grant in France entitled the applicant to a patent here, holding that patent rights are territorial, that every regime requires an independent assessment of novelty, inventive step and industrial application against its own standards, and that even the notional person skilled in the art differs between jurisdictions.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.