JFE Steel Corporation's patent application remanded for comprehensive review, addressing all objections raised.
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has set aside the order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which had rejected a patent application filed by JFE Steel Corporation. The court, presided over by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, directed the reconsideration of the application, emphasizing the necessity for a comprehensive examination of all objections raised during the patent evaluation process.
JFE Steel Corporation had challenged the July 2022 decision where their patent application was rejected solely on the grounds specified under Sections 10(4)(a) and 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court noted that the Assistant Controller had failed to address additional objections related to lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Sections 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja), and 3(d) of the Act, which were initially raised in the hearing notice.
The court underscored the importance of addressing all objections to avoid injustice and ensure proper adjudication. This approach is crucial considering the limited 20-year lifespan of patent applications. The court highlighted the inefficiency and potential unfairness in forcing applicants to repeatedly seek judicial intervention for objections not considered by the Controller, which could consume the entire patent term.
Justice Gedela, referencing previous judgments, reiterated that the Controller must examine all grounds of objection, even if an application appears non-patentable on one ground. This comprehensive review would expedite the process and provide fairness to patent applicants.
The case has been remanded with instructions for the Assistant Controller to reassess the application on its merits, considering all objections raised. A fresh hearing opportunity must be afforded to JFE Steel Corporation within six months from the date of this decision.
The judgment not only underscores the legal obligations of the patent office but also sets a precedent for ensuring thoroughness in the examination of patent applications, thereby safeguarding the rights of patent applicants.
Bottom line:-
Patent application rejected solely based on objections under Section 10(4)(a) and Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970 without addressing other objections raised in the hearing notice. Matter remanded for fresh consideration to ensure comprehensive examination of all objections.
Statutory provision(s): Section 10(4)(a), Section 10(4)(c), Section 2(1)(j), Section 2(1)(ja), Section 3(d), Section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970
