Hybrid Cell Inventions: Section 3(j) of the Patents Act Does Not Apply

Hybrid Cell Inventions: Section 3(j) of the Patents Act Does Not Apply Featured image for article: Hybrid Cell Inventions: Section 3(j) of the Patents Act Does Not Apply

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court upheld an appeal filed by BTS Research International Pty Ltd (“BTS”) challenging the rejection by the Assistant...

Read more about Hybrid Cell Inventions: Section 3(j) of the Patents Act Does Not Apply

Section 3(j), Essentially biological processes and human intervention

The Madras High Court considered whether human intervention in a plant breeding method excluded it from section 3(j) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded to the Patent Office, underlining the importance of clear reasoning in patent refusals involving essentially biological processes.

Read more about Section 3(j), Essentially biological processes and human intervention

“Focus on technology, not semantics” says court in case involving gene technology

The Madras High Court set aside a patent refusal for a gene technology application, criticising the Controller’s excessive focus on semantics over scientific content. The judgment directs the patent office to reconsider the application with an emphasis on technological merit.

Read more about “Focus on technology, not semantics” says court in case involving gene technology

Nuziveedu v. Monsanto – Patentability of Gene Sequences in India (Case Brief and Comments)

This case brief analyses the Nuziveedu v. Monsanto ruling on the patentability of gene sequences in India. The post critiques the Delhi High Court’s reasoning under Section 3j of the Patents Act and highlights issues needing further legal scrutiny.

Read more about Nuziveedu v. Monsanto – Patentability of Gene Sequences in India (Case Brief and Comments)