- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) No.181 of 2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal of a gene sequence application set aside on all four grounds. On section 59, inserting the words in vitro did not take the claim beyond the original specification: a modified gene cannot express in a plant unless physically inserted into its genome, which necessarily implies human intervention, and the expression was at most superfluous. On section 10(5), the Controller objected to grouping several sequence identifiers while overlooking that they formed a group of inventions sharing a single inventive concept, akin to a markush claim, each usable independently to obtain the same result, and ignored the inventor's affidavit explaining this. On section 3(j), the invention produced neither a plant nor an animal nor a new plant but only increased the biomass of existing plants, so it fell squarely outside. On inventive step the Controller over-relied on the cited prior art and never engaged with the inventor's affidavit distinguishing it. The Court observed that a Controller needs reasonable familiarity with language so as to concentrate on the science rather than the semantics of the description.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.