- Case number
- Controller of Patents & Designs(T)CMA(PT).33/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Disposed of
Headnote
Allowed in part. The refusal was set aside as regards claims 1 to 7, which were directed to proceed to grant, while the rejection of composition claims 8 to 11 was upheld. On section 3(e) the court held that the provision, unlike sections 3(d), 3(f) and 3(p), does not contain the word "known", and declined to read that adjective into it, departing from the IPAB's view in Stempeutics Research. The consequence is that where an ingredient independently satisfies the requirements of an invention, a patent may be granted for it notwithstanding section 3(e). A composition claim remains excluded where the substance merely exhibits the aggregate properties of its constituents, and the court held that section 3(e) is not confined to independent claims.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.