- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 415/2022
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Sanjeev Narula
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal under sections 3(i) and 3(j) set aside. Section 3(j) was never raised in the hearing notice yet became a ground of rejection, which denied the applicant any opportunity to contest it and breached natural justice. On section 3(i) the Court drew a distinction that decided the appeal: between a method of treatment and a method for producing a substance or composition which may have a specific use in a method of surgery, therapy or diagnosis. The claims here were to a method of producing a protein-enriched blood serum using gold particles, which is a method of producing a novel composition; the possible use of that serum in transfusion is an application of the product and was not part of the claims at all. Failing to recognise the distinction led to an erroneous application of the provision. The Court noted that the European Patent Office had granted the patent notwithstanding Article 53(c) of the European Patent Convention, which is to similar effect.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.