- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 44/2023
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Amit Bansal
- Outcome
- Registration refused
Headnote
Appeal dismissed and a refusal upheld on section 59(1). The unamended claims were directed to a method of treatment, excluded under section 3(i) and failing the industrial application requirement of section 2(1)(j), and the proposed amendments went beyond disclaimer, correction or explanation. The Court distinguished Allergan, where amendment of method of treatment claims to product claims had been allowed, on the footing that the decision there did not address whether the amendment fell within the limited permitted categories and that the amended claims concerned the same disease as the original; here the original claims and specification referred to a specific disease while the amended claims referred to none, so the amendment broadened rather than narrowed the scope.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.