TREIBACHER INDUSTRIE AG vs THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 31.07.2025 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 92/2024 TREIBACHER INDUSTRIE AG .....Appellant versus THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case For the Appellant : Dr. Chitra Arvind & Ms. Rasya Rawal, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Sumit Nagpal, SPC with Mr. Rudra Paliwal, Mr. Tanmay Saini, Ms. Aakanksha Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA JUDGMENT TEJAS KARIA, J INTRODUCTION 1. The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.12.2023 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (“Controller”) refusing the grant of patent in respect of the Patent Application bearing No. 201917008959 (“Application”) on the grounds that the proposed amended claims are beyond the scope of the original claims filed at the time of filing. 2. The learned Controller rejected the Application under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Act”) and lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act, and due to lack of patentability. The invention of the Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 92/2024 Page 1 of 15 Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:01.08.2025 11:27:37 Appellant was filed in India as a national phase entry of the Patent Cooperation Treaty Application being PCT/EP2017/072893 dated 12.09.2017 (“PCT Application”). FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3. The invention under the Application wastitled as “USE OF VANADATES AS OXIDATION CATALYSTS”and filed regarding a process of catalytically oxidising carbonaceous compounds from a combustion engine in the presence of a ternary vanadate of Formula(I). The Formula(I) is represented as “FexMeIyMeIIzVO4(I)” wherein “MeI” and “MeII” are different from each other and stand fo