- Case number
- CMA(PT) No.8 of 2024
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal of a regenerative braking application set aside, in part. On inventive step the Controller failed to examine the claim on what the applicant actually said distinguished it, that the user selects one of more than one regenerative mode and that the selection is the trigger for the process to operate after reckoning specific vehicle parameters, the cited document disclosing a regenerative and a reverse mode but no high and low regenerative mode. No reasons were recorded for the conclusion that the invention would be obvious to the skilled person. On sufficiency the Court found the Controller had overlooked that one predefined value was specified in a dependent claim and that a fault condition would be indicated by the system itself, but accepted that certain other predefined values did not appear in the complete specification, leaving that to be reconsidered on remand.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.