- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) No.149 of 2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Abdul Quddhose
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal of a patent application under section 3 set aside for total non-application of mind on three counts. Patents obtained for the same invention in other jurisdictions were not considered at all, and without considering them the Controller could not conclude whether they were identical to what was sought in India. The hearing notice had recorded that there was an inventive step, yet the order found there was none, with no reason given for the change. And the order refused the application under section 3 without indicating which sub-clause the invention fell under, which the applicant was entitled to know. The Court also described as absurd an observation referring to a Second Examination Report of 2004 when the First Examination Report was issued in 2018. A Controller is a quasi-judicial authority and must apply its mind to the claimed invention under the provisions of the Act.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.