- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) 32/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
An order which could not be called unreasoned was still set aside, because the Controller never engaged with the specific submissions distinguishing each cited document and gave no reasons for rejecting them. Where the same prior art had been cited in other jurisdictions and the invention held inventive there, cogent and sufficient reasons should have been provided before refusing.
Disposition
Set aside and remanded for reconsideration. No opinion expressed 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.