Remanded Decisions
108 cases | Page 3 of 4
Omega SA v.The Controller of Patents & Design, Government of India
Omega SA appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a ceramic element inlaid with metallic decoration, which was rejected by the Controller on grounds of lacking inventive step. The High Court found that the Controller failed to apply his mind properly to the issue and equated the hyper-precision technology to ordinary laser etching. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Duke University v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Design
Duke University appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'LASOFOXIFENE TREATMENT OF ER+ BREAST CANCER' by the Deputy Controller. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and statutory objections (Sec. 2(1)(ja) and Sec. 3(i)), without permitting the appellant to amend its claims as requested.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Qualcomm Incorporated appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application for 'Methods and Apparatus for Estimating Departure Time'. The rejection was based on the grounds that the invention lacked inventive step. The High Court found the impugned proceedings too cryptic and lacking in reasoning, leading it to allow the appeal.
Intercontinental Great Brands Llc v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Intercontinental Great Brands LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for a soluble foaming composition. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found that the Patent Controller failed to consider the detailed submissions made by the appellants regarding the distinction between their protein-free invention and the cited prior art, leading to the appeal being allowed and the matter remanded.
Techpolymers Industria E Comercio Ltda v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application by the Controller, which cited lack of inventive step and objected to an amendment under Section 59. The High Court found that the Controller failed to consider the explanations regarding prior art and misinterpreted the substance of the amended claim. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and remanded for fresh consideration.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed the refusal by The Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for its invention concerning a pull starter mechanism for a scooter. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive steps. The High Court allowed the appeal, allowing the appellant to consider amended claims, and remanded the matter to another Patent Controller.
Novozymes A/S v.The Controller of Patents
Novozymes A/S appealed an order by The Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a patent on 'Enzyme Dehairing of Skins and Hides'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and being contrary to public order (harm to animals).
3M Innovative Properties Company v.Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
The petitioner appealed against the Joint Controller's order rejecting its patent application for a compound used in treating viral diseases and tumors. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and falling under Section 3(d).
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a subcutaneous anti-HER2 antibody formulation. The rejection was based on the product lacking inventive step and being known in the market. The court allowed the appeal, noting that the original decision failed to address 11 out of 12 claims independently.
Monsanto Technology, LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Monsanto Technology appealed the order of the Assistant Controller which refused to patent two independent claims related to transgenic soybean plants. The appellant argued that if objections were raised, at least the remaining eleven claims should have been patented. The High Court found the respondent had not applied its mind wholly to all claims.
Onco Therapy Science, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Onco Therapy Science appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its application for a patent covering novel peptides used as vaccines against cancers. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider their written submissions and supporting materials when issuing the rejection order. The High Court allowed the appeal, remanding the matter back for fresh consideration.
Robert Bosch Limitada v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Robert Bosch Limitada appealed the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order rejecting its patent application. The rejection was allegedly based on insufficient description, which the appellant argued was not properly communicated during the examination process. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Priya Randolph v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision rejecting their patent application (201641026786) on the grounds that the invention was a 'business method' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The court examined the claims, which related to concealing physical address information during e-commerce transactions using software and hardware. The High Court held that the monopoly claim was on a technical solution for data privacy, not merely a business method.
Arkema France v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Arkema France appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a 'Heat Transfer Method'. The appellant argued that the rejection relied heavily on a new prior art document (D5) introduced only at the hearing stage. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, allowing potential amendments under Section 59 if disclosure is deemed inadequate.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application for an 'IMAGE CONSTRUCTION APPARATUS'. The appellant challenged the refusal order on grounds that the conclusions regarding obviousness and patent eligibility (Section 3(k)) were unreasoned. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Ashok Oswal v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Ashok Oswal appealed the rejection of his patent application (No. 201811029748), which covered a system and method for determining textile raw material quality attributes. The appellant argued that the impugned order failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the claims under Section 3(k) and Section 2(1)(ja).
Helix Biomedix Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Helix Biomedix Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Short Bio-Active Peptides for Cellular and Immunological Modulation'. The rejection was based on Section 3(c) because the claimed peptides were derived from Hyalophora cecropia (Cecropia moth). The High Court set aside the order, finding that the respondent failed to address the appellant's submissions regarding the chemical synthesis of the peptides.
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Panasonic Intellectual Property appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its patent application for a 'Washing Machine' due to lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked detailed reasoning and cited foreign grants. The High Court found that the impugned order merely extracted prior art without engaging with the appellant's submissions, thus lacking reasons.
Lipotec, S.A. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Lipotec appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 7314/CHENP/2009) for 'Regulatory Compounds For Pigmentation'. The rejection was based on Section 3(d) and lack of inventive step, citing prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Controller disregarded experimental data and detailed submissions.
Bcs S.P.A. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bcs S.P.A. appealed the Controller's decision rejecting its patent application for an 'Agricultural Driving Mechanism and Related Tool'. The appellant argued that the rejection order was unreasoned, merely reproducing extracts from prior art without proper analysis. The High Court agreed, finding the order bereft of reasoning, and set it aside.
Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Saint-Gobain Abrasives appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents and Designs concerning Patent Application No. 201941052276 for a NONWOVEN ARTICLE. The appellants argued that the rejection based on lack of disclosure, definitiveness, and obviousness was unsustainable. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for re-consideration.
Nripendra Kashyap, Constituted Attorney Of Blackberry Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents
The appellant, Blackberry Limited, challenged the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 8984/CHENP/2012 by the Assistant Controller. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and anticipation by prior art documents D1-D4. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Assistant Controller failed to address key submissions made by the appellant regarding the technical differences between the invention and the cited prior art.
DOW GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application for 'Ethylene-based polymers' on the ground of lack of inventive step, citing prior art documents D4 and D5. The court set aside the impugned order, holding that the arguments regarding non-obviousness were not properly engaged by the respondent. Consequently, the matter was remanded to allow reconsideration while taking into account the passage of time and foreign patent grants.
New York University v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
New York University appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 9210/CHENP/2011) for an invention related to targeting pathological tau proteins. The High Court found that the rejection lacked cogent reasons, particularly regarding amendments and inventive step, and consequently set aside the impugned order.
University College London v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
University College London appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'COLONIC DRUG DELIVERY FORMULATION'. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the Controller failed to engage with the specific submissions made by the appellant.
University College London v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
University College London appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'COLONIC DRUG DELIVERY FORMULATION' by the Assistant Controller. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D1 to D6. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Controller failed to engage with the appellant's specific arguments and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Starpharma Pty Ltd v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Starpharma Pty Ltd appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 10044/CHENP/2013, which covered a method and gel formulation for treating bacterial vaginosis. The appellant argued that the amended claims were within the scope of the original application and complete specification. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd appealed the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order rejecting its patent application for 'N-substituted indole derivatives as PGE2 receptor modulators'. The appellant argued that it was not given a proper opportunity to justify the inclusion of the expression 'pharmaceutically acceptable salts' in its claims before the rejection. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its PCT National Phase application. The rejection was based primarily on alleged failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding a delayed Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the rejection was not dealt with on merits and procedural errors did not justify rejection, thus remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947029757) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the objections raised in the Second Examination Report were effectively addressed through amendments, and the rejection was based on procedural grounds rather than merits. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.