Allowed

R and D S.R.L. v. Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras HC23 Jul 2024(T)CMA(PT)/195/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the rejection of a patent application, the High Court held that the Controller's order was non-speaking as it lacked reasons for rejecting the application under Section 2(1)(ja) and Sections 57/59 of the Patents Act. The appeal was allowed for a de novo hearing by a different officer.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed for a de novo hearing of the patent application by a different Patent Controller.

R and D S.R.L. Vs Controller of Patents and Designs — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

(T) CMA (PT) No.195 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

(T) CMA (PT) No.195 of 2023

¶7

R. & D. S.R.L. Via Olanda, 71/a-41122, Modena MO Italy, Nationality: Italy

¶8

.. Appellant

¶9

..Vs.

¶10

Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Rights Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

¶11

.. Respondent

¶12

Prayer : This appeal came to be numbered by transfer of IPAB Case OA.SRNo.55/2021/PT/CHN from the file of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai praying that the impugned order dated 24.12.2020 passed by the respondent to be set aside and the subject patent application to be granted considering the written submission as required under Rule 28(7) of the Patent Rules, 2003 and the claims filed on 03.06.2019, that Form 1 submitted at IPO on 08.10.2020 along with Petition under Rule 137 be allowed and pending Claim 1 should be accepted as they are well within the purview of Section 57/59.

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

(T) CMA (PT) No.195 of 2023

¶16

for M/s.De Penning & De Penning

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel Senior Panel Counsel

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This Appeal has been preferred against the rejection of the Patent Application of the appellant in Patent Application No.8850/CHENP/2012 dated 24.12.2020.

¶20

I have heard Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned Counsel for M/s.De Penning

¶21

and De Penning and Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent/Patent Controller.

¶22

The short matrix on which the appeal has been preferred is that the order impugned in the present Appeal is a non speaking order and the Controller has not assigned any reasons or offered any explanation for rejection of the Application of the Appellant. Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel for the Appellant would take me through the impugned order to fortify his submissions in this regard.

¶23

Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel would also submit that the proof

¶24

of right was also rejected by the respondent/Controller without any

¶25

2/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

(T) CMA (PT) No.195 of 2023

¶28

discussion on this aspect. Though the respondent has disallowed the amended claim under Sections 59 & 57 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, (in

¶29

short 'Act'), there is no reason assigned for arriving at such a conclusion. Similarly even while arriving at the decision to non suit the appellant on the ground that the claimed invention was obvious under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act and that persons skilled in the art and combination of prior arts, D1 to D3 were clearly against the appellant, after merely extracting the prior arts, the respondent has come to the conclusion that prior arts would clearly defeat the claim for registration of the claimed invention. The written submissions filed by the appellant have also not been objectively considered by the respondent.

¶30

Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the impugned order is a reasoned order and the matter does not require to be remitted.

¶31

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

¶32

I find that though the respondent has held that the proof of right

¶33

3/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

(T) CMA (PT) No.195 of 2023

¶36

cannot be allowed under Sections 57/ 59 of the Act, no reasons are assigned for such decision and consequently amended claims which are factually narrowing down the original claim have also not been considered. Similarly, after discussing the prior arts D1 to D3 and the claims of the appellant, the respondent has concluded that the claimed invention was obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art. However, there is no discussion as to how the Controller has arrived at such a conclusion/finding. The decision is not supported by any reasons. In view of the above, this matter is required to be re-heard.

¶37

In fine, this Appeal is allowed and there shall be a de novo hearing of the Patent Application of the Appellant by a different Patent Controller and the entire exercise shall be concluded after affording an opportunity to the appellant to make further submission and final orders will be passed within a period of three months. No costs.

¶38

23.07.2024

¶39

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rkp

¶40

¶41

4/6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

(T) CMA (PT) No.195 of 2023

¶44

Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Rights Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

¶45

P.B.BALAJI,J. rkp

¶46

5/6

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

(T) CMA (PT) No.195 of 2023

¶49

(T) CMA (PT) No.195 of 2023

¶50

23.07.2024

¶51

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R and D S.R.L. v. Controller of Patents and Designs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R and D S.R.L. v. Controller of Patents and Designs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.B.S.Gomathi Janci Rani Vs Thiru.K.Palani and 2 other

T.K.Kannaniah Kannama Charities Trust (Community Trust) Registered Trust as Document No.456/2021 Vs Nil

Prema Narasimhan and 3 others Vs K.S. Vasantha

Chennai Runners Association Rep by its President Shahid Kandrikar, Vs The Trade Marks Registry

V.Alamelu and 2 others Vs C.Dakshinamoorthy (Deceased) 1.R.VIJAYA and 2 Others

Mr.a.Mohammed Zackiullah Vs Mr.Abhay Kumar Singhvi and 2 others