Steigerwald Arzneimittelwerk GmbH filed patent application for a pharmaceutical invention which was refused by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs on 25 July 2017 on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act 1970. The appellant challenged the refusal order in appeal under Section 117A before the Delhi High Court. The court reasoned that the impugned order suffered from lack of adequate reasoning and proper appreciation of the applicant's submissions technical distinctions from prior art and evidence on novelty inventive step thereby violating principles of natural justice and reasoned decision-making. The appeal was allowed setting aside the refusal order and remanding the matter to the Controller for fresh consideration with directions to pass a detailed speaking order after affording full opportunity of hearing.
- Refusal orders in patent applications must be detailed speaking orders demonstrating proper application of mind to submissions prior art distinctions technical advantages and evidence on novelty inventive step under Section 2(1)(j): Para [relevant]; Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 29/2022, Para [corresponding].
- Cryptic or unreasoned orders violating natural justice warrant setting aside and remand for reconsideration: Para [corresponding]; Ferid Allani v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 7/2014, Para [corresponding].
Steigerwald Arzneimittelwerk GmbH Vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Order date: 09 January 2026, Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 423/2022, Neutral Citation: N/A, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
No comments:
Post a Comment