- Case number
- CMA(PT) 25/2024
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
The refusal rested almost entirely on judgements of the Court pronounced some six months after the hearing and the written submissions, which the applicant had therefore never had the chance to address. That alone warranted interference, with no opinion expressed on whether the claimed invention per se discloses pathology.
Disposition
Set aside and remanded for re-consideration. No opinion expressed on the merits of the application.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.