K.N.BASHA,CHAIRMAN - (1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 18.06.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Chennai rejecting the application filed by the appellant for seeking the relief of granting Patent right.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned order was passed rejecting the claim of the appellant on two grounds namely 1. that the appellant failed to provide data regarding therapeutic efficacy of claim Crystalline form (Form -1) of Compound (2) and no.2. the claims also lack inventive step under Section 2(i) (j)(a) of the Patents (Amendment act) 2005.
(3.) THE learned counsel would contend that there is no data in respect of therapeutic efficacy of claim Crystalline Form (1) of Compound (2). It is also contended that the second ground is also untenable as the learned Controller failed to consider the entire documents establishing the claim of the appellant. The learned counsel would submit that the impugned order is not a speaking order and all the claims and contents raised by the appellants are not properly considered by the Controller. Heard Mr. Liakatali learned senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is contended that the learned Controller assigned reasons for passing the impugned order and as such there is no illegality.;