Topic
The Delhi High Court, hearing T-Mobile’s petition, ordered the Patent Office to use new guidelines for applying the Section 3(m) mental-act exclusion. The guidelines set evidentiary standards and steps to separate non-technical mental steps from patent-eligible inventions, affecting all software-related patent applicants and examiners.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a remand order issued to cure a breach of natural justice in patent examination cannot be used as a vehicle for the Controller to raise fresh objections or cite new prior art not present in the original file. This clarifies that remand is strictly procedural - meant to ensure fair hearing, not to restart prosecution with new grounds - protecting applicants from procedural ambush and reinforcing the integrity of patent examination.
Madras High Court rules that economic advantages-such as lower operating costs-can satisfy the inventive step requirement under the Patents Act if they are non-obvious to a person skilled in the art. The judgment directs the Patent Office to re-examine the application with a specific focus on the claimed cost benefits, marking a shift from traditional technical advance thresholds.