In Base SE v. Deputy Controller of Patents, the Calcutta High Court ruled that scientific and technical inventions addressing agricultural problems are not excluded under Section 3(h). It also clarified that partial grant of patent claims is not permitted under Indian patent law.
Read more about Calcutta High Court Clarifies Scope of Section 3(h) in Patent Law: Base SE v. Controller of PatentsTag: Section 3(h)
Clarifying Patentability of Plant Treatment Methods under Section 3(h) and 3(i)
The Delhi High Court, in Syngenta Crop Protection AG vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, examined the rejection of an Indian patent application under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Court ruled that plant treatment methods are distinct from agricultural processes, referring to the 2003 amendment to Section 3(i), and remanded the case for fresh examination with amended claims.
Read more about Clarifying Patentability of Plant Treatment Methods under Section 3(h) and 3(i)Delhi High Court reverses Patent refusal, Highlights significance of procedural adherence in handling claims of PCT National phase applications.
The Delhi High Court overturned a patent refusal for a PCT national phase application, stressing the importance of procedural adherence in claim examination. The Court directed a fresh evaluation, emphasizing accurate application of legal provisions and detailed analysis of objections.
Read more about Delhi High Court reverses Patent refusal, Highlights significance of procedural adherence in handling claims of PCT National phase applications.