- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) 123/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
A one-page order described the two cited documents and the hearing notice and then concluded that the invention lacked an inventive step, with no explanation of how the claimed invention had been tested against the settled legal position. The written submissions had set out in detail why the cited art did not lead to the invention, and the patents already granted in the United States and in Europe were not considered.
Disposition
Allowed. Matter remitted for fresh consideration by a different Patent Controller.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.