{"id":355616,"date":"2025-08-05T09:30:49","date_gmt":"2025-08-05T04:00:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=355616"},"modified":"2025-08-06T16:01:17","modified_gmt":"2025-08-06T10:31:17","slug":"delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Simplicity no bar to patentability of an invention\u2019; Delhi HC remands Vertical Rotary Parking System application to Controller for de novo consideration"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed under Section 117A<\/a> of the Patents Act, 1970<\/a> (\u2018Patents Act\u2019) against the order, passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs (\u2018Controller\u2019), by way of which, the Controller rejected the appellant\u2019s Indian Patent Application (\u2018subject application\u2019), under Section 15<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a>, a single judge bench of Mini Pushkarna J. remanded the matter to the Controller for de novo<\/span> consideration, to be completed and order being passed within four months, uninfluenced by the impugned order.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that simplicity is not a bar to patentability, and minor structural changes can still lead to substantive technical improvements. It further observed that once a new prior art has been introduced, even though it may belong to the applicant itself and was not part of the FER, then, also an applicant has the right to respond to the said newly introduced prior art. Therefore, refusal to allow the amendment to the specifications, which was sought to provide clarification regarding the technical advancements of the subject invention over the newly cited prior art, amounts to a clear violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted if a prior art comes to the notice of the Controller during the pendency of a patent application, though not disclosed by the applicant, and if objection in that regard is raised by the Controller, the applicant would have a right to address such issues by way of amending the specifications, within the norms of amendment that are allowed as per law.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The appellant filed a patent application on 29-8-2013 for an invention titled \u201cVertical Rotary Parking System,\u201d (\u2018subject invention\u2019), used as a parking system so as to park as many vehicles as possible in a narrow space. A request for examination was made and the First Examination Report (\u2018FER\u2019) was issued on 14-8-2018, to which the appellant responded on 11-1-2019. Subsequently, Parkerbot India Pvt. Ltd. filed a pre-grant opposition, citing prior art documents D-1 to D-4. The Patent Office issued a pre-grant notice on 8-2-2023, and the appellant responded with evidence. A hearing was scheduled but shortly before it, the opponent introduced a new prior art document, D-5, which was not part of the original opposition. The appellant attended the hearing and submitted arguments and a request for amendment (Form-13) in November 2023, while the opponent did not attend. On 12-4-2024, the Patent Office rejected the application, disregarding the pre grant opposition based on D-1 to D-4 but citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja)<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a> in view of D-5. It also rejected the appellant\u2019s request to amend the specification under Section 15<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a> leading to filing of the present appeal.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court noted that the appellant was also the inventor and patentee of prior art document D-5, which was a similar Vertical Rotary Parking System. The Court observed that the Controller\u2019s conclusion of \u201clack of inventive step\u201d was based on a simplistic view that the invention merely reversed the coupling configuration, without analysing the technical advancement or citing any authoritative evidence to support the conclusion of obviousness.<\/p>\n

The Court held that the finding of the invention being a mere workshop modification lacked factual or legal foundation. It emphasized that simplicity is not a bar to patentability, and minor structural changes can still lead to substantive technical improvements. The Controller failed to substantiate the claim that such modifications did not involve technical expertise and as to how it was an obvious solution, and the reliance on “common general knowledge” was unsubstantiated and speculative, as no supporting material was cited. Moreover, the Court highlighted that the time gap between D-5 (published in 2003) and the subject application (filed in 2013) suggested the changes were not so obvious, especially as no third party made similar modifications in that period.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that the appellant had sought to amend the claim specifications to incorporate prior art D-5, into the specifications of the subject application. However, the said amendment was wrongly rejected by the Controller on the ground that, since the said document D-5 belonged to the appellant itself, the appellant ought to have mentioned about the said document as part of complete specification. Though the cited prior art D-5 belonged to the appellant itself, however, merely because the appellant did not cite D-5 at the time of filing the subject application, cannot be held against the appellant as a failure to disclose a complete specification.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that there exists no specific bar for amendment to the specifications even at a subsequent stage, and the only requirement is that the amendment must satisfy the conditions provided under Section 59<\/a> of the Patents Act<\/a>, and the amendment in the specifications is not inconsistent with the claims made in the original specifications. Thus, the respondent erred in rejecting the amendment application of the appellant and in not allowing the amendment in the specifications, which sought to explain the technical advancement in the subject invention over the prior art, i.e., document D-5. In view of the aforesaid, the Controller\u2019s refusal to allow the amendment application was unjustified.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the appellant\u2019s submission of a Technical Evidence Affidavit dated 5th July 2024, which provided stress analysis data and comparative technical details to substantiate claims of advancement over D-5. The Court found no impediment to the consideration of this affidavit, as it directly addressed the Controller\u2019s concerns.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that the proposed amendment by the appellant, in its specifications, was a legitimate response to the Controller\u2019s subsequent introduction of document D-5, as prior art. Thus, the Controller\u2019s refusal to allow the appellant\u2019s application for amendment of the specifications, is not justified. Once a new prior art has been introduced, even though it may belong to the applicant itself and was not part of the FER, then, also an applicant has the right to respond to the said newly introduced prior art. Therefore, refusal to allow the amendment to the specifications, which was sought to provide clarification regarding the technical advancements of the subject invention over the newly cited prior art, amounts to a clear violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.<\/p>\n

The Court concluded that the impugned order was untenable and directed that it be set aside and the matter be remanded for de novo consideration by a different officer, uninfluenced by the impugned order. The patent application be restored, a fresh hearing be granted, and the process to be completed within four months.<\/p>\n

[Dong Yang PC, Inc v. Controller, Patents and Designs, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5112<\/a>, decided on 1-7-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Appellant:<\/span> Pravin Anand, Ravi Aggarwal, Advocates.<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Ankur Mittal, CGSC with Aviraj Pandey, Advocates.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Refusal to allow the amendment to the specifications, which was sought to provide clarification regarding the technical advancements of the subject invention over the newly cited prior art, amounts to a clear violation of the Principles of Natural Justice”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":355627,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[86627,86631,65463,2543,69176,86630,42197,30661,86628,86629],"class_list":["post-355616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-86627","tag-amendment-of-specifications","tag-de-novo-consideration","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-justice-mini-pushkarna","tag-non-disclosure-of-prior-art","tag-patent-law","tag-patents-act","tag-simplicity-no-bar-to-patent","tag-vertical-rotary-parking-system"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi HC: Simplicity No Bar to Patentability; Vertical Rotary Parking System Application Remanded |SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court ruled that simplicity does not disqualify an invention from being patentable and remands Vertical Rotary Parking System application to Controller for de novo consideration.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Simplicity no bar to patentability of an invention\u2019; Delhi HC remands Vertical Rotary Parking System application to Controller for de novo consideration\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court ruled that simplicity does not disqualify an invention from being patentable and remands Vertical Rotary Parking System application to Controller for de novo consideration.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-05T04:00:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-06T10:31:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-6-7.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018Simplicity no bar to patentability of an invention\u2019; Delhi HC remands Vertical Rotary Parking System application to Controller for de novo consideration\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi HC: Simplicity No Bar to Patentability; Vertical Rotary Parking System Application Remanded |SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-6-7.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-05T04:00:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-06T10:31:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court ruled that simplicity does not disqualify an invention from being patentable and remands Vertical Rotary Parking System application to Controller for de novo consideration.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-6-7.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-6-7.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Simplicity no bar to patentability of an invention\u2019; Delhi HC remands Vertical Rotary Parking System application to Controller for de novo consideration\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi HC: Simplicity No Bar to Patentability; Vertical Rotary Parking System Application Remanded |SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court ruled that simplicity does not disqualify an invention from being patentable and remands Vertical Rotary Parking System application to Controller for de novo consideration.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Simplicity no bar to patentability of an invention\u2019; Delhi HC remands Vertical Rotary Parking System application to Controller for de novo consideration","og_description":"Delhi High Court ruled that simplicity does not disqualify an invention from being patentable and remands Vertical Rotary Parking System application to Controller for de novo consideration.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-08-05T04:00:49+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-06T10:31:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-6-7.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Simplicity no bar to patentability of an invention\u2019; Delhi HC remands Vertical Rotary Parking System application to Controller for de novo consideration","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/","name":"Delhi HC: Simplicity No Bar to Patentability; Vertical Rotary Parking System Application Remanded |SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-6-7.webp","datePublished":"2025-08-05T04:00:49+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-06T10:31:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Delhi High Court ruled that simplicity does not disqualify an invention from being patentable and remands Vertical Rotary Parking System application to Controller for de novo consideration.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-6-7.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-6-7.webp","width":886,"height":590},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/delhi-hc-simplicity-patentability-vertical-rotary-parking-system\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Simplicity no bar to patentability of an invention\u2019; Delhi HC remands Vertical Rotary Parking System application to Controller for de novo consideration"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/blog-6-7.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":270049,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/14\/delhi-high-court-non-consideration-of-the-grounds-raised-in-a-pre-grant-opposition-while-granting-patent-per-se-constitutes-violation-of-principles-of-natural-justice\/","url_meta":{"origin":355616,"position":0},"title":"Delhi High Court| Non-consideration of the grounds raised in a pre-grant opposition while granting patent per se constitutes violation of principles of natural justice","author":"Editor","date":"July 14, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Jyoti Singh, J. in a case where patent was granted without delving and dealing with the grounds raised in the pre-grant opposition stage remanded it back to the Deputy Controller of Patent for reconsideration of the pre-grant opposition as the impugned order violates principles of natural justice.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298090,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/31\/delhi-high-court-request-chief-justice-to-formulate-division-bench-to-decide-issues\/","url_meta":{"origin":355616,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court requests Chief Justice to formulate Division Bench for deciding issues relating to plurality of inventions u\/s 16 of Patents Act, 1970","author":"Editor","date":"July 31, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe application could not have been rejected solely on the ground that the plurality of inventions was not specifically contained in the claim, and only in the disclosure contained in the complete specifications.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":314601,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/19\/beyond-words-patent-applicant-controller-must-substance-of-claim-madras-hc-remanded-matter-controller-de-novo-consideration-amended-claim\/","url_meta":{"origin":355616,"position":2},"title":"\u2018Controller must look into the substance of claim beyond choice of words of patent applicant\u2019: Madras HC remands matter to Controller for de novo consideration","author":"Apoorva","date":"February 19, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court said that the Controller appears to have made short of his responsibility by merely extracting the priors he relied on but had not thought it fit to consider the explanations.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277875,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/22\/simplicity-does-not-defeat-an-invention-and-even-simple-inventions-are-patentable-delhi-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":355616,"position":3},"title":"Simplicity does not defeat an invention and even simple inventions are patentable: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"November 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a case where an appeal was filed against the order of Controller General of Patents and Designs (Respondent) refusing the application for grant of patent \u2018Notched Fastener\u2019, the Single Judge Bench of Prathiba M. Singh, J. held that simplicity would not defeat the grant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281943,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/19\/delhi-high-court-rules-principles-of-natural-justice-to-be-followed-by-indian-patent-office-in-pre-grant-opposition-stage-novartis-natco-hearing-both-sides-necessary-legalnews-legalresearch-legalupdat\/","url_meta":{"origin":355616,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court rules in the context of the procedure and principles of natural justice to be observed by the Indian Patent Office in a pre-grant opposition to a patent application","author":"Editor","date":"January 19, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In pharmaceutical patents, especially, additional care must be taken to ensure that, by being allowed to evergreen a patent beyond its expiry, the patent holder does not keep others, who may seek to deal in the patented product, out of the market. The ultimate sufferer, in such a situation, would\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":292382,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/need-to-reconsider-exclusions-u-s-3k-of-the-patents-act-in-view-of-growing-innovations-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":355616,"position":5},"title":"Need to reconsider exclusions under S. 3(k) of the Patents Act in view of growing innovations: Delhi High Court","author":"Simranjeet","date":"May 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Many inventions in emerging technologies including by SMEs, start-ups and educational institutions can be in the field of business methods or application of computing and digital technologies, therefore, there is a need to reconsider the exclusions in Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, in view of the growing innovations.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/355616","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=355616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/355616\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/355627"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=355616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=355616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=355616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}