The Single Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Groz Beckert KG Vs Union of India & Ors held that it is not sufficient to conclude that a claimed invention is obvious merely because individual parts of the claim taken separately are known or might be found to be obvious. It was expounded that the invention has to be considered as a whole for ascertaining the inventive step. The whole picture has to be considered instead of a partial one.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant is the leading manufacturer of industrial machine needles meant for the production and joining of textile fabrics and has a global presence. The Appellant was engaged in the research and development of a new product used in the textile industry and for the invention, a patent application was filed. However, the application for registration was rejected.
Hence, the present appeal was filed under Section 117A (2) of The Patents Act, 1970.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was contended that the Controller made a mistake by failing to take the subject invention into account as a whole. Each of the Appellant's assertions includes several features that ought to have been taken into account. Instead, the subject invention was incorrectly segregated by the contested order.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that simply because some claim elements considered individually are known or may be determined to be obvious does not mean that the entire invention is apparent.
It was opined that there should be an element of preciseness about what is asserted to be common general knowledge. The “obviousness” must also be strictly and objectively judged.
It was expounded that the invention has to be considered as a whole for ascertaining the inventive step. The whole picture has to be considered instead of a partial one.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned observations, the said order was set aside and accordingly, fresh consideration for patent application was ordered.
Case Title: Groz Beckert KG Vs Union of India & Ors
Case No: AID NO.16 OF 2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
Advocates for the Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Mr. S. Das, Mr. Aditya Mondal, Mr. C. Pal
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
