Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.69 seconds)
Mahesh Gupta vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And ... on 29 May, 2024 cites

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Switzerland ... vs Cipla Ltd., Mumbai Central, Mumbai on 7 September, 2012

20. We will now assess the doctrine of non-obviousness, a critical legal standard that prohibits the granting of patents for inventions that do not achieve a substantial level of innovation. According to the judicial precedents explaining the concept of a Person Skilled in the Art ('PSITA'),9 in this case, the PSITA would be a person proficient in the general practices of on-board diagnostics ('OBD') designing and up-to-date with the latest developments, particularly those related to OBD for vehicles. Next, it is essential to evaluate whether PSITA could have combined existing teachings to conceive the invention and, crucially, whether there was a compelling motivation to combine these elements in the manner proposed by the invention. In this analysis, considering the technical features of D4 and D5 discussed above, it would be a logical progression for PSITA aiming to enhance vehicle tracking systems to amalgamate these elements. PSITA would easily recognize the benefits of merging D5's portable design with D4's extensive monitoring capabilities to forge a versatile and efficient tracking device. Moreover, no economic benefits of creating a device that is both portable and capable of comprehensive monitoring, have been set out in the subject invention. The fusion of portability with comprehensive 9 See, Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd, (1979) 2 SCC 511, F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd & Anr. v Cipla Ltd.. 2015: DHC:9674-DB, ALIMENTARY HEALTH LIMITED v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGN 2024: DHC: 3920 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 328/2022 Page 25 of 28 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:29.05.2024 18:55:03 monitoring, though beneficial, aligns with the expected competencies of a PSITA informed by D4 and D5. Therefore, this combination does not manifest as an inventive step but rather a predictable refinement of existing technologies.
Delhi High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 65 - M Singh - Full Document

Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam vs Hindustan Metal Industries on 13 December, 1978

20. We will now assess the doctrine of non-obviousness, a critical legal standard that prohibits the granting of patents for inventions that do not achieve a substantial level of innovation. According to the judicial precedents explaining the concept of a Person Skilled in the Art ('PSITA'),9 in this case, the PSITA would be a person proficient in the general practices of on-board diagnostics ('OBD') designing and up-to-date with the latest developments, particularly those related to OBD for vehicles. Next, it is essential to evaluate whether PSITA could have combined existing teachings to conceive the invention and, crucially, whether there was a compelling motivation to combine these elements in the manner proposed by the invention. In this analysis, considering the technical features of D4 and D5 discussed above, it would be a logical progression for PSITA aiming to enhance vehicle tracking systems to amalgamate these elements. PSITA would easily recognize the benefits of merging D5's portable design with D4's extensive monitoring capabilities to forge a versatile and efficient tracking device. Moreover, no economic benefits of creating a device that is both portable and capable of comprehensive monitoring, have been set out in the subject invention. The fusion of portability with comprehensive 9 See, Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd, (1979) 2 SCC 511, F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd & Anr. v Cipla Ltd.. 2015: DHC:9674-DB, ALIMENTARY HEALTH LIMITED v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGN 2024: DHC: 3920 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 328/2022 Page 25 of 28 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:29.05.2024 18:55:03 monitoring, though beneficial, aligns with the expected competencies of a PSITA informed by D4 and D5. Therefore, this combination does not manifest as an inventive step but rather a predictable refinement of existing technologies.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 58 - Full Document

Alimentary Health Limited vs Controller Of Patents And Designd on 11 September, 2023

20. We will now assess the doctrine of non-obviousness, a critical legal standard that prohibits the granting of patents for inventions that do not achieve a substantial level of innovation. According to the judicial precedents explaining the concept of a Person Skilled in the Art ('PSITA'),9 in this case, the PSITA would be a person proficient in the general practices of on-board diagnostics ('OBD') designing and up-to-date with the latest developments, particularly those related to OBD for vehicles. Next, it is essential to evaluate whether PSITA could have combined existing teachings to conceive the invention and, crucially, whether there was a compelling motivation to combine these elements in the manner proposed by the invention. In this analysis, considering the technical features of D4 and D5 discussed above, it would be a logical progression for PSITA aiming to enhance vehicle tracking systems to amalgamate these elements. PSITA would easily recognize the benefits of merging D5's portable design with D4's extensive monitoring capabilities to forge a versatile and efficient tracking device. Moreover, no economic benefits of creating a device that is both portable and capable of comprehensive monitoring, have been set out in the subject invention. The fusion of portability with comprehensive 9 See, Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd, (1979) 2 SCC 511, F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd & Anr. v Cipla Ltd.. 2015: DHC:9674-DB, ALIMENTARY HEALTH LIMITED v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGN 2024: DHC: 3920 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 328/2022 Page 25 of 28 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:29.05.2024 18:55:03 monitoring, though beneficial, aligns with the expected competencies of a PSITA informed by D4 and D5. Therefore, this combination does not manifest as an inventive step but rather a predictable refinement of existing technologies.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document
1