TMPatentDismissed 29 January 2025
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v. Controller of Patents
2025:MHC:293
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Bench
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J.
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Date of judgment
- 29/1/2025
Statutory provisions
Section 117-A, Patents Act 1970 — Appeals to High CourtSection 77(1)(f), Patents Act 1970 — Controller's power to review own decisionSection 77(1)(g), Patents Act 1970 — Controller's power to set aside ex parte orderSection 10(4)(a), Patents Act 1970 — Disclosure of invention in specificationSection 10(4)(b), Patents Act 1970 — Disclosure of best method of performing inventionSection 10(5), Patents Act 1970 — Clarity, succinctness, and fair basing of claimsSection 3(k), Patents Act 1970 — What are not inventions (computer programs)Section 3(m), Patents Act 1970 — What are not inventions (schemes or methods)Section 59(1), Patents Act 1970 — Amendments to claimsCode of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC), Section 114 — Review of judgmentCode of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC), Order XLVII, Rule 1(1)(a) — Application for review of judgment
Key issue
Whether the Controller of Patents' rejection of a patent application for a 'persona-extender' invention was justified due to lack of enablement, clarity, inventive step, and patentability under the Patents Act.
Summary
This is an appeal against the Controller of Patents' decision to reject a patent application for a "Necktie Persona-Extender/Environment-integrator" invention. The Controller found that the patent application lacked sufficient disclosure, clarity in its claims, inventive step, and patentability under various sections of the Patents Act. The High Court affirmed that the Controller's decision was correct, even though the initial review application by the appellant was not properly grounded. The Court emphasized that the invention lacked technical effect and clear instructions for implementation, making it non-patentable.
Result: Appeal for patent grant dismissed; the Controller's decision denying the patent was upheld.
Tags
#patentability#sufficiency of disclosure#inventive step#patent review#computer related invention#AI patent
Judgment PDFOpen in new tab