- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) No.145 of 2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Abdul Quddhose
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal under sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d) quashed as a non-speaking order. The Controller ignored the gap between the amended claims and the prior art, never considered the written submissions, the responses to the objections or the amended claims, and gave no reason for concluding that the core structure of the claimed compound was the same as that of the cited document, which on a prima facie view disclosed a different core. On Novartis, the test of efficacy for a medicine claiming to cure a disease can only be therapeutic efficacy, but the order said nothing about why the claimed invention failed that test. Following Avery Dennison, a significant technical advancement suffices to satisfy inventive step, and following BlackBerry, a Controller cannot refuse by merely reproducing the objections raised in the First Examination Report.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.