IP Case Law › Patents › Hirotsu Bio Science Inc. v. Assistant Controller of Patents …
Relevant Acts and provisions
Patents Act, 1970
Provisions considered: Section 3(i), Patents Act, 1970
Brief facts
Hirotsu's application claimed a cancer-detection method using nematodes, with preparatory steps for identifying the nematodes to be used. The Assistant Controller refused it on 29 August 2023 as a diagnostic method excluded by Section 3(i).
Issues before the Court
Whether the claimed method is a diagnostic method excluded by Section 3(i).
Court's findings
The preparatory method for identifying nematodes was one of the steps of the claimed diagnostic method in claim 1 and had no use in isolation. The impugned order rightly analysed the steps and gave reasons for treating the claimed method as diagnostic (paras 39-40).
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the refusal order dated 29 August 2023 upheld.
Key legal principle / ratio
A cancer-detection method, including its preparatory steps that serve only the diagnosis, is a diagnostic method excluded from patentability under Section 3(i).
Important paragraph references
Paras 39-40. Read with Natera Inc. v. Assistant Controller (2025), also on IP Lex.
Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.
Keywords
Cancer Detection Diagnostic Method Nematodes Patent Refusal Upheld Section 3(i)
Read the judgment
More Patents judgments
Patents
Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
An order refusing a patent for lack of inventive step must contain a reasoned analysis of the prior art and of why the claimed invention would be obvious; an unreasoned order will be set aside and remanded.
Inventive StepPatent OfficePrior Art AnalysisReasoned OrderPatentsArray Biopharma Inc v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
A combination of distinct and independent active drugs, each with its own chemical identity and mechanism, does not fall under the Section 3(d) bar for derivatives of known substances. Using phrases such as 'for simultaneous, sepa…
Inventive StepMethod of TreatmentPharmaceutical CombinationPrior ArtPatentsAstraZeneca AB & Anr. v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
A patentee that has treated a later patent as coextensive in term with an earlier patent covering the same compound abroad cannot, at the interim stage, claim a longer period of protection for the later patent in India; interim re…
DapagliflozinEvergreeningGenus PatentInterim Injunction