In Blackberry Limited v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court set aside the order refusing Blackberry\u2019s patent application by the Indian Patent Office, reiterating the importance of issuing reasoned and speaking orders that adhere to the principles of natural justice. The matter has been remanded back to the Controller for fresh consideration.<\/p>\n
The appeal arose from the refusal of Blackberry\u2019s patent application (No. 1071\/DEL\/2007) relating<\/em> to radio resource control between User Equipment (UE) and Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN). The application was rejected <\/em>on multiple grounds, including lack of inventive step, non-patentability under Sections 3(k) and 3(m), and non-compliance with disclosure requirements under Section 8 of the Patents Act. Additionally, the amended claims were held to fall outside the scope of the original specification, which was contrary to the provisions of Sections 57 and 59.<\/p>\n Blackberry, in its appeal, contended that the amendments were in the nature of correction or explanation and were fully supported by the original specification.<\/p>\n The Court, upon prima facie<\/em> review, observed that impugned order lacked any reasoning as to how the amendments exceeded the permissible scope under Sections 57 and 59. Referring to established precedents, the Court reiterated that amendments in the nature of correction, disclaimer, or explanation, are permissible under Section 59, provided \u00a0they remain within the scope of the original specification. It further opined that the Controller\u2019s refusal to consider the amended claims, without proper justification, was in breach of the principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Controller for a de novo<\/em> consideration. The Court specifically directed the Controller to re-examine the allowability of the proposed amendments under Sections 57 and 59, and thereafter address the remaining objections under Sections 2(1)(j), 3(k), 3(m) and 8.<\/p>\nCourt\u2019s Order<\/strong><\/h2>\n