- Case number
- IPDPTA/28/2023
- Court
- Calcutta High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Ravi Krishan Kapur
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
Where re-examination under section 13(3) turned up five fresh prior art documents, the Controller was bound to issue a Second Examination Report; raising those objections for the first time in the hearing notice was contrary to sections 13(3) and 14 read with Rules 28 and 28A. The order also reproduced the appellant's own written submissions, adopted a piecemeal approach of matching parts of the invention against chosen passages of the prior art, and recorded conclusions with no element of why to support them.
Disposition
Set aside, with a compressed timetable for fresh examination. Not binding on the merits.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.