Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)Nippon A And L Inc. vs The Controller Of Patents on 5 July, 2022
In Nippon A&L Inc. v. The Controller of Patents, 2022:DHC:2434,
it has been held that amendment to claims prior to the grant ought to be
construed more liberally, so long as the claims are being restricted to
disclosure already made in the specification. The relevant extracts from the
said judgement are extracted as under:
Article 123 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 15 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 117A in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Agc Flat Glass Europe Sa vs Anand Mahajan And Ors. on 10 September, 2009
7. Learned amicus curiae has filed written submissions in which it has
been explained as to how addition of a feature to a principal claim can result
in limiting the scope of the claim. He has also placed on record judgment of
this Court in AGC Flat Glass Europe v. Anand Mahajan and Others, 2009
SCC OnLine Del 2826, wherein this Court has accepted the proposition that
addition of limitation to certain features in the original claim can result in
limiting the scope of the claim and held that in such circumstances, the
addition of such a limitation to the feature in the original claim acts as a
disclaimer and the same can be allowed. This recourse of disclaimer is
adopted by the patentees in order to clarify the exact scope of the invention,
once they are faced with the invalidity of their patents. The relevant
observations of the said judgment are set out below:
Protection Of Women From Domestic ... vs Delhi Guest House Services Private ... on 16 December, 2020
However, in Baker Perkins
Ltd.'s Application, (1958) RPC 267 and AMP
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AMIT
BANSAL
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 480/2022 Signing Date:15.05.2023 17:42:00 Page 5 of 9
2023:DHC:3350
Incorporated v. Hellerman Ltd., (1962) RPC 55 it has been
observed that amendments which limit the scope of the
specification to a sub-combination which was within the
original claim would be a disclaimer (which can be allowed),
and the absence of an appendant claim in the original
document to such sub-combination cannot of itself be a
reason for refusing the amendment."
1