Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)
Medilabo Rfp Inc vs The Controller Of Patents on 24 November, 2025 cites

Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa vs The Controller Of Patents And Design & ... on 3 February, 2023

Thus, while working examples are essential for demonstrating the feasibility and workability of an invention, they do not define the patent's scope. The scope is determined by the claims, which must be interpreted in light of the description and any examples provided. The reasoning for applying Section 3(i) of the Act to the subject application is therefore, misplaced. Mr Banerjee also relies on the decision of this Court in Societe Des Produits Nestle SA v. The Controller of Patents and Design and Anr.,2 where, in a similar situation, the Court referenced the Manual of Patent Office, Practice and Procedure, which gives the guidance for examination with respect to exclusion of medical, surgical, curative, prophylactic, diagnostic, therapeutic or other treatment, and held that the claims in respect of the composition are patentable, and not hit by Section 3(i) of the Act. In the present case as well, the claim 1, as defined, in the opinion of the Court, does not render the application to be non- patentable."
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - A Bansal - Full Document

Miami (Oa/13/2020/Pt/Kol) vs Controller Of Patents on 18 April, 2023

In University of Miami (supra), it is held that the expression treatment in the claim in question does not render it non-patentable under Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2024 Page 17 of 22 Signed By:SWATI MAYEE SAHU Signing Date:24.11.2025 20:14:34 Section 3(i) of the Act. There are many patents granted by the patent office in which the expression "composition for the treatment" has been used in the preamble of many claims. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - R K Kapur - Full Document
1