- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 255/2022
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Sanjeev Narula
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal under sections 3(e) and 3(i) set aside. The section 3(e) objection never appeared in the hearing notice, and the Court reiterated its consistent position that the Controller must enumerate all pending objections there, a requirement also carried by Circular No. 4 of 2011. Omitting it deprived the applicant of the chance to answer and violated natural justice. On section 3(i), claim 1 was a product claim naming no disease, no treatment and no mode of administration, so a provision directed at methods of treatment did not apply. The scope of a patent is set by the claims, read in light of the description; working examples demonstrate that an invention is feasible and workable but do not define its scope, so the mere recitation of unit numbers in the claim could not render it ineligible.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.