Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

47. There is also no evidence in the specification for a person skilled in the art to determine which compound is most effective as compared to other compounds. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would have to perform unduly large number of experiments to ascertain which compound is useful for which disease condition. There is no evidence as to which compound is superior - hence, patent is a merely library of compounds, insufficient and vague.

...

20. As stated by Halsbury (3rd Edn.) Vol. 29 p. 59 Para. 123, "not useful" in patent law means that the invention will not work, either in the sense that it will not operate at all or more broadly, that it will not do what the specification promises that it will do. If the invention will give the result promised at all, the objection on the ground of want of utility must fail. It is further stated in the said passage that the practical usefulness or commercial utility of the invention does not matter, nor does it matter whether the invention is of any real benefit to the public, or particularly suitable for the purposes suggested, and that it is only failure to produce the results promised that will invalidate the patent, not misstatements as to the purposes to which such results might be applied. In Terrell on the Law of Patents, (11th Edn.) p. 98 para 248, quoting from an English case, it is stated that if the patentee claims protection for a process for producing a result and that result cannot be produced by the process, the consideration fails. It is further stated there that objections to patents on such grounds are sometimes treated as objections for want of utility, and when so treated, the well known rule is that the utility of an invention depends upon whether, by following the directions of the patentee, the result which the patentee professed to produce can in fact be produced. Quoting from another English case, the same proposition is stated in another way in Terrell at p. 99, viz. that the protection is purchased by the promise of results, and that it does not, and ought not, to survive "the proved failure" of the promise to produce the results. As already stated above, the only result which the specification (Ex. A) in the present case professed to produce was a new class of chemical compounds having hitherto unsuspected blood sugar lowering property, but without the undesirable side effects of the previously known sulphonamides. As also stated above, the defendants have not been able to prove that a single compound falling within the patent does not possess blood sugar lowering properties to a greater or lesser degree. The position, therefore, is that not only is there no "proved failure" to produce the results promised by the plaintiffs' patent specification (Ex. A), but there is a "proved failure"

 What is the extent of the disclosure so far as the working/ operation of the compounds as claimed in the suit patent is concerned?

 Whether such operation of the compound is in consonance with the promises made by the specification or not?  Whether the workings of the few of the compounds are present in the suit patents as against others or not?  Whether the absence of the workings of the few compounds in the suit patents would effect the disclosure of the utility relating others which are most relevant and closely connected with the claims or not?

Insufficiency Likewise, in the same manner, the defendants counsel has also enlisted the objections as to insufficiency of the patent in the written submissions though no elaborate submissions were canvassed across the bar to explain them. The same are:

 It is submitted that the claims of the suit patent are very broad and include thousands of compounds, if not millions.

 The plaintiff has provided examples for preparation of around 500 compounds;

 Undue experimentation required to test utility - hence patent invalid for lack of sufficiency : There is nothing in the specification to demonstrate whether all these compounds are useful against all the diseases mentioned under the Section "Utility" or whether some of the compounds are useful or not. There is also no evidence in the specification for a person skilled in the art to determine which compound is most effective as compared to other compounds. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would have to perform unduly large number of experiments to ascertain which compound is useful for which disease condition.