GALATEA LTD Vs. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS, PATENT OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant assails an order dtd. 13/10/2020 by which Patent Application No.876/CHENP/2008 was rejected by the Indian Patent Office. The said application was the national phase application derived from PCT Application No. IB-2006/052884. The claimed invention is titled 'A method for evaluation of a gemstone". Upon such application being presented before the Indian Patent Office on 21/2/2008, the First Examination Report (FER) was issued by the patent office on 9/8/2014. The appellant responded to the FER on 5/2/2015 and 1/4/2015. A hearing notice was issued on 5/4/2015.

(2.) Meanwhile, the first notice of pre-grant opposition was filed by the second respondent on 2/12/2013. The second respondent cited prior art documents D1, D3 and D11, which were referred to in the impugned order, and such pre-grant opposition was responded to by the appellant on 4/11/2013. A second notice of pre-grant opposition was filed by the third respondent on 5/4/2017 and supplemented on 18/9/2017. The third respondent cited prior art documents D2, D3, D5, D6, D7 and D9, which were referred to in the impugned order. This pre-grant opposition was responded to by the appellant on 10/11/2017. A third notice of pre-grant opposition was filed by the fourth respondent on 26/4/2018. The fourth respondent cited prior art documents D2, D3, D10 and D12, which were referred to in the impugned order, and such pre-grant opposition was responded to by the appellant on 29/6/2018. A fourth notice of pre-grant opposition was filed by the fifth respondent on 27/4/2018. The fifth respondent cited prior art documents D1-D3 and D13, which were referred to in the impugned order, and such pre-grant opposition was responded to by the appellant on 29/6/2018.

(3.) A fifth notice of pre-grant opposition was filed by the fifth respondent on 4/5/2018. The fifth respondent cited prior art documents D1, D2, D4 and D14, which were referred to in the impugned order, and such pre-grant opposition was responded to by the appellant on 29/6/2018. A sixth notice of pre-grant opposition was filed by the seventh respondent on 12/6/2018. The seventh respondent cited prior art documents D1 and D3, which were referred to in the impugned order, and such pre-grant opposition was responded to by the appellant on 7/7/2018. A seventh notice of pre-grant opposition was filed by the eight respondent on 11/2/2019. The eighth respondent cited prior art documents D2 and D15, which were referred to in the impugned order, and such pre-grant opposition was responded to by the appellant on 14/2/2019. A eighth notice of pre-grant opposition was filed by the ninth respondent on 2/11/2019. The ninth respondent cited prior art documents D1-D9, which were referred to in the impugned order, and such pre-grant opposition was responded to by the appellant on 5/11/2019. The ninth and last pre-grant opposition was filed by the tenth respondent on 10/1/2020.