HC directs patent body to review Oppo’s plea
1 min read 25 Jun 2023, 11:25 PM ISTCalcutta High Court has asked the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to evaluate Oppo's appeal against the rejection of its patent application within three months. Oppo challenged the decision under the provisions of the Patents Act, and the high court bench has referred the patent application back to the Controller.
PremiumMumbai: The Calcutta High Court has asked the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to evaluate consumer electronics firm Oppo’s appeal against the rejection of its patent application within three months.
Oppo had submitted a patent application, Charging System and Charging Method, and Power Adapter in 2017, but the application was refused by the patent body in August 2022, due to its lack of patentability.
Consequently, Oppo challenged the decision under the provisions of the Patents Act, and the high court bench led by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur has referred the patent application back to the Controller.
Oppo claimed that its charger offers an additional advantage of maintaining a moderate temperature and preventing excessive heat build-up, thereby enhancing reliability, safety, and service life of the battery. Additionally, it said the charging system incorporates component arrangement and generation of ripple waveform in multiple stages, eliminating electrolytic capacitor, which helps reduce the size and cost of the power adapter.
Oppo said it was not given an opportunity to amend its claims, after objections were raised in the first examination report of the Controller. Non-issuance of the second report also violated Section 13(3) of Patents Act, it added.
The Controller argued that the invention lacked technical advancement, and the claims were based on existing technologies, and is not a “specific invention".
The court directed the Controller to issue a second examination report after examination of the amended claims and provide Oppo with an opportunity to deal with objections, if any.“In passing the impugned order, there has been a violation of the statutory provisions in issuing the hearing notice citing additional objections and relying on the same in without granting an opportunity to the appellant to amend its claim and without issuance of a second examination report," the court said.
