This case pertains to invention titled "Opposed Piston Engine with Non-Collinear Axes of Translation," the rejection of the patent application and subsequent reversal on appeal underscore the complexities of patent law and the importance of legal analysis in patent disputes. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, examining the grounds for rejection, the appellate court's observations, and the implications for patent applicants and the patent system.

Background:
The appellants sought patent protection for their invention related to opposed piston engines, specifically focusing on the arrangement of pistons with non-collinear axes of translation. The application, filed in 2012, faced substantive objections, primarily concerning the inventive step in light of cited prior art documents. The Patent Office rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step in view of the cited documents.

However, the appellants appealed the decision to the Hon'ble High Court, challenging the rejection and presenting arguments to support the patentability of their invention. The court's analysis and subsequent decision offer valuable insights into the interpretation and application of patent law principles.

Court's Analysis:
The Hon'ble High Court meticulously reviewed the grounds for rejection and evaluated the arguments presented by the appellants. The court noted that the cited prior art documents did not explicitly teach or suggest the features claimed in the invention. Crucially, the court observed that there was no motivation or suggestion in the cited documents that would render the claimed features obvious to a person skilled in the art.

Furthermore, the court considered the amendments made to the patent claims during the appellate process. It found that the amended claims were within the scope of the complete specification of the claimed invention. As per Section 59 of the Patents Act, the court held that such amendments were permissible, especially when the features were already disclosed as an option in the complete specification.

Outcome and Implications:
In light of its analysis, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the impugned order rejecting the patent application. The court directed the controller of patents to reconsider the application and dispose of it within a specified timeframe.

The reversal of the rejection underscores the importance of a thorough legal analysis and strategic approach in patent disputes. The case highlights the significance of clear and comprehensive patent specifications, as well as the potential for amendments to strengthen patent claims during the appellate process.

Conclusion:
The case of the "Opposed Piston Engine with Non-Collinear Axes of Translation" patent application offers valuable insights into the intricacies of patent law and the patent application process. It emphasizes the need for inventors to navigate the complexities of patent examination and appeals with a nuanced understanding of legal principles and strategic considerations.

The Case Discussed:
Case Title: Pinnacle Engines Inc Vs Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs
Judgment/Order Date: 30.04.2024
Case No:CMA(PT)/17/2023
Neutral Citation:2024:MHC:1951
Name of Court: Madras High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy.H.J.

Disclaimer:
This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539