The Delhi High Court in the case AGFA NV And Anr v. The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design and Anr observed and stated that there being an imminent need to update the Manual of Patent Office Practise and the Procedure so that it can help the examiner and the Controllers to get better guidance on dealing with intricate matters related to complex inventions.
The bench headed by Justice Amit Bansal in the case observed and has stated that the number of Patent filings in India are rapidly increasing and there is an imminent need to update the Manual of Patent Office Practice and also the procedure so that the Examiners and Controllers can get better guidance on dealing intricate matters like objections of lack of clarity and succinctness as the same would be particularly useful when dealing with complex patents involving Artificial Intelligence systems, machine learning functions, agro- chemicals, pharmaceuticals and manufacturing methods.
The court in the case noted that the Manual issued by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks on 26.11.2019 and it does not give any guidance on what constitutes succinctness or how to identify lack of succinctness.
Adding to it, the court stated that the Office of CGPDTM may also consider giving adequate technical and patent analytics training to the Examiners and Controllers.
In the present case, the court was hearing an appeal moved by two entities under the Patents Act, 1970 wherein it challenged the order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing to grant them patent. Therefore, an application is filed by the entities for grant of patent titled, Manufacturing of Decorative Laminates by Inkjet on 08.07.2016.
The court in the case set aside the impugned order and noted that no specific observation was given by the Controller for the lack of succinctness in the patent claims.
The court in its order stated that the impugned order dated 14.06.20200 is set aside and the Patent Office shall proceed to grant the patent.
