In Case Of Amendment To A Patent Specification, The Invention Before & After Amendment Need Not Be Identical: Delhi High Court

In Case Of Amendment To A Patent Specification, The Invention Before & After Amendment Need Not Be Identical

Case: Nippon A&L Inc. V. The Controller Of Patents

Coram: Justice Pratibha M. Singh

Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 11/2022

Court Observation: “It is common understanding in the field of patents that product claims are much broader claims than process claims. A product claim, if granted, confers a monopoly on the patentee for the product itself, irrespective of the process by which the said product could have been made. However, in the case of a process claim, the exclusivity or the monopoly is restricted to the manner/method by which a particular product is manufactured and if the same product is manufactured or achieved through a different process/method, the exclusivity of the patentee cannot usually extend to such different process or to the product manufactured by the different process. When there are ‘product by process’ claims, however, the extent of monopoly depends upon the reading of the claims in each case.”

“When this standard, as contemplated by the Ayyangar Committee Report, is applied to Section 59 of the Act as it stands today, it becomes clear that amendments to a patent specification or claims prior to grant ought to be construed more liberally rather than narrowly. The purport and spirit of Article 123 of the European Patent Convention is not too different. In effect, the legislative material and the statutory provisions require that nothing new should be permitted to be inserted in the specification or claims. So long as the invention is disclosed in the specification and the claims are being restricted to the disclosures already made in the specification, the amendment ought not be rejected, especially, at the stage of examination prior to grant.”

Previous Posts

J&K&L High Court Directs Immediate Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants Of Newly Constructed Quarters

Convict Not Allowed To Attend Brother’s Funeral: Kerala High Court Grants Him Emergency Leave To Attend Subsequent Religious Rites

Person Who Is Absconding And Evading Execution Of A Warrant Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail: J&K&L High Court

Woman Commits Suicide After 17 Yrs Of Marriage: Telangana High Court Says No Presumption Of Abetment Against Husband

Classification Based On Educational Qualification For Promotion Not Violative Of Article 14&16 Of Constitution: J&K&L High Court

Axiomatic Delay Disentitles Party To Discretionary Relief U/A 226: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Acquisition Proceedings After “62 Yrs”

Scolding Employee To Maintain Office Discipline Does Not Amount To Abetment Of Suicide U/S 306 IPC: Gujarat High Court

CPC Counter Claim In A Suit Need Not Be Headed By Cause Title: Kerala High Court

Non-Rupture Of Minor’s Hymen Wouldn’t Rule Out Case Of Rape: Calcutta HC Upholds Conviction In 5 Yr Old Girl’s Rape Case

Substantive Right Accrued To A Litigant Should Not Be Defeated Citing Procedural Defects Capable Of Being Cured: Supreme Court

‘Court Cannot Be Unmindful Of The Impact Of Covid’: SC Refuses To Disturb Admission Of B-Tech Students Admitted Without Entrance Test Download Judgement