- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) No.22 of 2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Rejection of amended claims under sections 57 and 59 set aside. The original claims were to a method of treatment including administration of a gel formulation, and the amended claims were to the gel formulation itself. Comparing the amended claims with the original claims in the light of the disclosures in the complete specification, which described the gel formulation, its pH range, its rheology modifying agent and its chelating agent, the Court held the request for amendment should not have been rejected. Following Allergan v. Controller of Patents, an amendment is to be accepted so long as the amended claims fall within the scope of the original claims read with the disclosures in the complete specification.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.