Delhi High Court Allows Divisional Application Despite Multiple Inventions
Background
- On 28 Dec, 2005 the Appellant made an application to the Controller concerning an invention about an agrochemical concentrate.
- The original application was granted, however, the divisional application was rejected on the ground that the Divisional Application filed ought to have disclosed more than one invention in the parent application.
- Thus, an appeal was filed against this order before the Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar in which it was held that the stand in Boehringer Ingelheim, which held that the doctrine “what is not claimed is disclaimed”, is required to be revisited.
Legal Issues Involved in the Case
Relevance of the Plurality of Invention in Case of Divisional Application under Section 16 of the Patents Act.
Trademark Infringement Claim
The Division Bench of the Hon’ble DHC, presided over by Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma recently overruled the judgment passed by a Single Bench in Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. The Controller of Patents, in the context of Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. This section allows the filing of a divisional application in addition to the invention disclosed in the specifications of the prior patent application.
It was held by the court that it was sufficient for plurality of inventions to be mentioned in provisional or complete specifications and, that the requirement of plurality of inventions being present in the parent application does not apply when a divisional application is filed suo motu. In the proceedings before the Division Bench, the court opined that the doctrine had no application to divisional filing and claim drafting. Furthermore, the court stated that in case of a provisional filing, the claims need not be stated at all. The Bench interpreted that Section 16 enables the filing of a divisional application, provided that the plurality of inventions is disclosed in provisional or complete specifications.
Conclusion
The judgment provided in the case of Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs in C.A. (COMM. IPD-PAT) 471/2022 shows that Divisional patent applications in India have undergone a significant evolution. The said evolution is primarily driven by judicial interpretations of the legislation made by the courts. This would enable the patent applicants to have a clear understanding of the law and would also help the professionals working in this field to better guide their clients in obtaining patents.
Amul Strikes Back: Court Defends Iconic Trademark Against ‘Amuleti’ Infringement
Changing Trends in Trademark Enforcement Rights
Copyright Infringement – Section 63, A Cognizable and Non-Bailable Offence
Draft geographical Indications of Goods(Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2023
Delhi High Court Allows Divisional Application Despite Multiple Inventions
Background
- On 28 Dec, 2005 the Appellant made an application to the Controller concerning an invention about an agrochemical concentrate.
- The original application was granted, however, the divisional application was rejected on the ground that the Divisional Application filed ought to have disclosed more than one invention in the parent application.
- Thus, an appeal was filed against this order before the Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar in which it was held that the stand in Boehringer Ingelheim, which held that the doctrine “what is not claimed is disclaimed”, is required to be revisited.
Legal Issues Involved in the Case
Relevance of the Plurality of Invention in Case of Divisional Application under Section 16 of the Patents Act.
Trademark Infringement Claim
The Division Bench of the Hon’ble DHC, presided over by Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma recently overruled the judgment passed by a Single Bench in Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. The Controller of Patents, in the context of Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. This section allows the filing of a divisional application in addition to the invention disclosed in the specifications of the prior patent application.
It was held by the court that it was sufficient for plurality of inventions to be mentioned in provisional or complete specifications and, that the requirement of plurality of inventions being present in the parent application does not apply when a divisional application is filed suo motu. In the proceedings before the Division Bench, the court opined that the doctrine had no application to divisional filing and claim drafting. Furthermore, the court stated that in case of a provisional filing, the claims need not be stated at all. The Bench interpreted that Section 16 enables the filing of a divisional application, provided that the plurality of inventions is disclosed in provisional or complete specifications.
Conclusion
The judgment provided in the case of Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs in C.A. (COMM. IPD-PAT) 471/2022 shows that Divisional patent applications in India have undergone a significant evolution. The said evolution is primarily driven by judicial interpretations of the legislation made by the courts. This would enable the patent applicants to have a clear understanding of the law and would also help the professionals working in this field to better guide their clients in obtaining patents.
Amul Strikes Back: Court Defends Iconic Trademark Against ‘Amuleti’ Infringement
Changing Trends in Trademark Enforcement Rights
Copyright Infringement – Section 63, A Cognizable and Non-Bailable Offence
Draft geographical Indications of Goods(Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2023
Delhi High Court Allows Divisional Application Despite Multiple Inventions
Background
- On 28 Dec, 2005 the Appellant made an application to the Controller concerning an invention about an agrochemical concentrate.
- The original application was granted, however, the divisional application was rejected on the ground that the Divisional Application filed ought to have disclosed more than one invention in the parent application.
- Thus, an appeal was filed against this order before the Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar in which it was held that the stand in Boehringer Ingelheim, which held that the doctrine “what is not claimed is disclaimed”, is required to be revisited.
Legal Issues Involved in the Case
Relevance of the Plurality of Invention in Case of Divisional Application under Section 16 of the Patents Act.
Trademark Infringement Claim
The Division Bench of the Hon’ble DHC, presided over by Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma recently overruled the judgment passed by a Single Bench in Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. The Controller of Patents, in the context of Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. This section allows the filing of a divisional application in addition to the invention disclosed in the specifications of the prior patent application.
It was held by the court that it was sufficient for plurality of inventions to be mentioned in provisional or complete specifications and, that the requirement of plurality of inventions being present in the parent application does not apply when a divisional application is filed suo motu. In the proceedings before the Division Bench, the court opined that the doctrine had no application to divisional filing and claim drafting. Furthermore, the court stated that in case of a provisional filing, the claims need not be stated at all. The Bench interpreted that Section 16 enables the filing of a divisional application, provided that the plurality of inventions is disclosed in provisional or complete specifications.
Conclusion
The judgment provided in the case of Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs in C.A. (COMM. IPD-PAT) 471/2022 shows that Divisional patent applications in India have undergone a significant evolution. The said evolution is primarily driven by judicial interpretations of the legislation made by the courts. This would enable the patent applicants to have a clear understanding of the law and would also help the professionals working in this field to better guide their clients in obtaining patents.
Amul Strikes Back: Court Defends Iconic Trademark Against ‘Amuleti’ Infringement
Changing Trends in Trademark Enforcement Rights
Copyright Infringement – Section 63, A Cognizable and Non-Bailable Offence
Draft geographical Indications of Goods(Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2023
Connect with our Experts to resolve your legal issues!
KAnalysis is a boutique full service law firm, well positioned to represent its international and domestic clients.
© 2007 – 2024 KAnalysis Consultant Private Limited. All Rights Reserved