EARTHFACTOR (PRIVATE) LIMITED versus PATENT OFFICE, IPO-PAKISTAN THROUGH CONTROLLER
Sections 7 (4) (d), 2 (s), 2 (T), 8, 21 and 23 Patentable Inventions Double Number Sim Novelty and Invention Sector Later Use of a Famous Product or Process Patent Office, Intellectual Property Organization Appellant's Dispute Order (IPO), Pakistan, under which respondents' patent application was granted for a dual number SIM and the patent was granted permission for the applicant's dispute with each other. That the defendant's patent application was neither inventive nor eligible for action and / or was born within the meaning and scope of the Patent Ordinance, 2000, Respondents' acceptance of a patent application appears to violate the rules, procedures and laws under which an inventive imitation was, if it was new, an inventive measure involved. , And was eligible for industrial application and, under section 7 (4) (d), a new or later use of a well-known product and process, the patent was not allowed to issue a dual or double number SIM card. I was not new. This world will not be in accordance with the principles of law under the Patent Ordinance, 2000, in addition to the literary definition of invention and novelty, a technology that was already widely used. Countries around the world, including Pakistan, and therefore comply with Section 7 (4) (d) of the Patent Ordinance 2000, no patent can be allowed if such manufacturing is not invented if the preparation process is known in advance. And no patent can be provided for it, and if such patent had already been granted, then it could not be allowed to continue an impermissible order under which
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
