Author name: J. Sai Deepak

In 2 earlier posts, I had discussed the Delhi High Court’s judgment on maintainability of pre-grant decision appeals before the IPAB. In those 2 posts, the focal point was to underline the fact that the rejection of a patent application in a pre-grant opposition (let’s call this “PGO” rejection for short) is no different from its rejection under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970 in the normal course of examination. Before the pronouncement of this judgment, I was searching

In the last post, I had discussed the Delhi HC’s decision on appealability of pre-grant patent rejections before the IPAB. The post discussed the effect and import of the 2005 amendment on Section 25, Section 116 and Section 117A of the Act. In this post, the combined interpretation of Section 15, Section 25(1) r/w Rule 55, 117A and 117G has been dwelt upon. Section 15, Section 25(1), Section 117A and Section 117 G: Though it is clear that there must

This post has been split in 2 parts for the convenience of readers. To understand this post better, following is a reproduction of the relevant provisions of the Act: Section 15: Power of Controller to refuse or require amended applications in certain cases (1) Where the Controller is satisfied that the application or any specification or any other document filed in pursuance thereof does not comply with the requirements of this Act or of any rules made thereunder, the controller