GOGORO INC Vs. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

(2.) The appellant- Gogoro Inc. has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order dtd. 8/8/2021 passed by the ld. Asst. Controller of Patents. Vide the impugned order, the Appellant's application bearing no. 1312/DELNP/2014 for an invention titled "APPARATUS, METHOD AND ARTICLE FOR AUTHENTICATION, SECURITY AND CONTROL OF POWER STORAGE DEVICES SUCH AS BATTERIES' has been rejected by the Patent Office. The application of the Appellant has been refused on the ground that sec. 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970 has not been complied with.

(3.) Ms. Mani, ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the impugned order is completely unreasoned. The order seeks to suggest that the patent has been rejected for lack of inventive step but in paragraph 5 of the impugned order, it is stated that Sec. 2(1)(j) of the Act is not complied with. Moreover, it is her submission that all the three prior arts which were cited i.e., D1, D2 and D3 have not been considered by the ld. Asst. Controller while passing the impugned order. Only D3 has been considered that too without any reason as to why there is lack of inventive step in the invention in question. She further submits that the application of the Appellant had both independent device and independent method claims. However, the independent method claims were also not considered by the Controller and there is no clarity in the impugned order as to which of the claims lack inventive step. Moreover, ld. Counsel for the Appellant also submits that the lack of inventive step can be overcome by amending the claims and Appellant is willing to amend the claims. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has placed the marked up copy of the proposed amended claims on record.