- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 7/2021
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Prathiba M. Singh
- Outcome
- Allowed
Headnote
Appeal allowed and the application directed to proceed to grant, the exclusion for diagnostic processes under section 3(i) being held inapplicable. The judgment is also useful on amendments: the amended claim added a limitation that the infrared beam diameter be equal to or larger than the hydrophilic region, which had not appeared in the originally filed claims. The Court held the amendment permissible under section 59 because the feature was expressly present as a preferred embodiment at paragraph 23 of the complete specification, which explained why the relationship was needed for accurate quantitation, and because it narrows rather than expands the claim. It therefore qualified as an explanatory amendment incorporating an actual fact, adding no new matter and not changing scope.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.