The High Court remitted a patent application for examination de novo after the appellant filed amended claims. The Court directed the Respondent to consider the amended claims and decide the matter within three months.
Remanded to the Respondent for hearing and decision de novo within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:MHC:1842
(T)CMA(PT) No.23 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
(T)CMA(PT) No.23 of 2023
Optimedica Corporation 3130 Coronado Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA, a US corporation
.... Appellant
Vs
Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs Government of India, Patent Office Intellectual Property Rights Building, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
.... Respondent
Prayer: This appeal came to be numbered by transfer of OA.No.75/12/PT/CH from the file of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai praying this Court to set aside order dated 12.09.2012 and the application for patent be allowed to proceed toward grant.
For Appellant : Mr.Vineet Rohila for M/s.Remfry and Sagar For Respondent : Mr.Diwakar Senior Panel Counsel
1/4
(T)CMA(PT) No.23 of 2023
J U D G M E N T
Heard Mr.Vineet Rohila, learned counsel for the appellant,
Mr.S.Diwakar, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent and
Mr.Saravanan, Joint Controller of Patents, who is present virtually.
thus:
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the Patent application No.3483/CHENP/2007 dated 09.08.2007 filed by the Appellant herein was refused by the Respondent on 12.09.2012 U/s 15 of The Patents Act, 1970 as the subject matter of the alleged invention does not Constitute an invention under the provisions of Section 2(1)(j) of The Patents Act, 1970.
It is further submitted that the Petitioner has filed Appeal against this order before the board and later it was transferred and Numbered (T)CMA(PT) No.23 of 2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. In the said Appeal, the Appellant filed an Amended claim (Auxiliary Request) provided in Annexure-L which is at page no.206 of the Form 1 along with the typed set. The Joint Controller of Patents, Mr.V.Saravanan who passed the Rejection order was present thru Video Conferencing before the Hon'ble Court today (23.04.2024). He stated that the Amended Claims will be considered for grant of patent if the matter was remitted back to the same officer within the prescribed time limit as fixed by the Hon'ble Court.
and hence it would be appropriate that such amended claim be considered by the authority in accordance with law.
2/4
(T)CMA(PT) No.23 of 2023
hearing and decision de novo. The appellant shall appear before the respondent along with documents, if any, in support of its claim on 30.04.2024 at 10.30. a.m. without awaiting any further notice in this regard.
23.04.2024
Sl Index:Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes To
Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs Government of India, Patent Office Intellectual Property Rights Building, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
3/4
(T)CMA(PT) No.23 of 2023
Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.
Sl
(T)CMA(PT) No.23 of 2023
23.04.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the amended patent claims constitute an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Optimedica Corporation
Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Dr. Anita Sumanth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
