Section 3i | Intellepedia

Section 3(i) Rejections Reversed: Diagnostic Methods Must Disclose Pathology Per Se

In two recent decisions, the Madras High Court reversed patent application rejections under Section 3(i), clarifying that only diagnostic methods disclosing pathology per se fall within the exclusion. The Court remanded matters for fresh review, ensuring fair consideration and reasoned decisions by the IPO.

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.

Methods for Antibody Production in Genetically Modified Animals are Patentable; they are not covered under Section 3(i) Exclusion

The Madras High Court ruled that methods for producing antibodies in genetically modified animals are patentable under Indian law and are not excluded by Section 3(i). This decision clarifies the scope of patent eligibility for biotechnological inventions involving animal models.

Transparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear grounds

The Delhi High Court has reiterated the need for transparency in patent refusal orders, stating that clear grounds must be provided. The judgment highlights the importance of detailed reasoning and independent assessment of each claim in patent applications.

Patent refusals: The need for clarity and details beyond mere objections.

The Delhi High Court has stressed the necessity for detailed reasoning in patent refusal decisions. In this case, the absence of specific analysis and clarity in rejecting a divisional application led to the order being set aside and remanded for reconsideration.

Method of producing ‘protein enriched blood serum’ is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i), says the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court ruled that a method of producing protein enriched blood serum is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. The Court set aside the refusal and directed the Patent Office to reconsider the application after a fresh hearing.

Is a Method of Massaging Patentable subject matter?

The post analyses whether massage methods can be patented in India, highlighting the distinction between non-medical and medical methods under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. It references UK practice and suggests the Indian Patent Office may follow similar standards in the absence of direct precedents.