11 articles
Labeling a test as ‘screening’ doesn’t make it patentable if it decides treatment. In Geron Corporation’s case, measuring telomere length to decide who receives telomerase therapy made the…
The Delhi High Court reiterated that a properly drafted pharmaceutical composition claim cannot be dismissed as a “method of treatment” under Section 3(i), and has sent Medilabo’s neurodegenerative…
Delhi HC green-lights EMD Millipore’s IR spectroscopy patent and narrows the sweep of Section 3(i), while affirming compliant claim amendments under Section 59.
In the case of EMD Millipore Corporation vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court held that a non-invasive method for analysing biomolecules is not…
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 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 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…
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…
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…
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…