- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Mini Pushkarna
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal under section 15 set aside and the application remanded. The appellant's patent attorney had not attended the hearing and sought no adjournment. The Court held that under Rule 28(5) of the Patents Rules the Controller is bound to decide the application whether or not the applicant attends, and that the decision must still be by a reasoned and speaking order. Reasoning captured in a single paragraph does not meet that standard against a detailed reply. The Controller had also failed to take into account that the patent had been granted in several other jurisdictions, which Otsuka Pharmaceutical holds is an important factor on patentability. The impugned order had been passed within ten days of the hearing, before the fifteen days allowed by Rule 28(7) for written submissions had expired.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.