EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT POWER AND WATER SOLUTIONS INC vs DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
$~104 & 105
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 178/2022
EMERSON PROCESS MANGEMENT POWER AND WATER SOLUTIONS INC ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Rohit Rangi, Advocate.
versus
CONTROLLER OF PATENTS ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday and Mr. Krishnan V., Advocates.
+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 17/2023
EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT POWER AND WATER SOLUTIONS INC ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Rohit Rangi, Advocate.
versus
DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday and Mr. Krishnan V. Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (O R A L)
% 08.12.2023
1. The orders under challenge in these appeals, instituted under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, are dated 13 April 2017 and 21 December 2015, rejecting the appellants Application Nos. 1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015 for registration of patents relating to computer software. As the issue in controversy is common, both these matters are being disposed of by this order.
2. In both these matters, Mr. Vaidyanathan, with customary fairness, points out that the main ground on which the applications filed by the Appellant seeking registration of a patent relating to computer software was rejected was that the associated hardware was not novel and inventive, the requirement of the associated hardware being novel and inventive, he fairly states, no longer figures in the guidelines followed by the Patent Office. As this constitutes the main ground of rejection of the petitioners applications, Mr. Vaidyanathan suggests that the impugned orders may be set aside and the applications remanded for de novo consideration.
3. Needless to say, Mr. Vaidyanathan, learned Counsel for the appellant is agreeable to this course of action.
4. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 13 April 2017 and 21 December 2015 are quashed and set aside.
5. Application No. 4197/DEL/2015 and 1253/DEL/2006 dated 21 December 2015 and 13 April 2017 are remanded for de novo consideration to the Patent Office to be assigned to a competent officer. The Appellant shall be granted an opportunity of hearing before any decision is taken. The Patent Office is directed to take a decision as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today.
6. Both the appeals stand allowed to the aforesaid extent.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
DECEMBER 8, 2023
aks
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 178/2022 and another connected matter Page 1 of 3