- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) No.2 of 2024
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
Refusal of a biomass hydrolysis process set aside outright. Going through each cited document, the Court found that none taught the key feature, that the hydrolysed species of the feedstock itself acts as the solvent for fresh feedstock, and that one taught away from it. On sufficiency it held, following FDC v. Sanjeev Khandelwal, that section 10(4) requires the specification to describe the invention fully and particularly and to disclose the best method, but does not require the claims to be representative of the best method; following Tata Global Beverages, that examples need not be given across the entire range claimed; and following Farbwerke Hoechst, that processes forming part of common general knowledge need not be described, the specification being addressed to those with a high degree of knowledge in the field. Disclosure of at least one way of working the invention suffices. On section 10(5) it is enough that the claims are fairly, not exactly, based on the description. On section 3(d), following Natco Pharma, where the solution itself was not known before the invention it cannot be the mere use of a known process; the could-would approach asks not whether the skilled person could have carried out the invention but whether he would have done so expecting to solve the problem or gain an advantage; and on Gandhimathi Appliances a combination of known integers showing a new use is patentable where the claimant was first to visualise it. The same prior art had been cited and overcome in the European application, and the invention stood granted in 23 jurisdictions.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.