ARTI SRIVASTAVA vs THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 17.04.2026 Judgment delivered on: 11.05.2026 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 252/2022 ARTI SRIVASTAVA .....Appellant versus THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant: Mr. Essenese Obhan and Ms. Yogita Rathore, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Kushagara Kansal, SPC alongwith Mr. Abhishek Ranjan Singh, Advocate and Mr. Ravi Shankar, Patent Examiner. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA JUDGMENT TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. 1. The present appeal challenges the order (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’) passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents (hereinafter referred to as “AC”) dated 31.01.2014, whereby the application no.1774/DEL/2006, titled as “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETECTING COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS” (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject application’) was rejected on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and lack of sufficiency of disclosure under Section 10(4)(a) of the Act. C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 252/2022 Signature Not Verified Page 1 of 26 Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Date:11.05.2026 19:47:26 2. The subject application was filed on 03.08.2006 before the patent office. The appellant made a request for examination and early publication on 08.03.2007. Thereafter, First Examination Report (FER) was issued on 29.06.2011. Thereafter, the appellant filed the response to the FER on 21.05.2012. The Patent Office issued the hearing notice on 03.06.2013 scheduling the hearing on 16.07.2013. Thereafter the appellant has filed the post hearing written submissions on 02.12.2013. 3. Thereafter the Patent Office issued the impugned order on 31.01.2014 rejecting the s