IP Case Law › Patents › Societe Des Produits Nestle SA v. The Controller of Patents …
Relevant Acts and provisions
Patents Act, 1970
Section 2(1)(ja)Section 3(e)Section 3(i)Section 59
Provisions considered: Sections 3(e), 3(i) and 59 of the Patents Act, 1970, on the method-of-treatment exclusion, synergy and claim amendment.
Brief facts
Nestle's national phase application for a composition for prophylaxis of allergic disease was refused under Section 15 on the grounds that its claims fell within the method-of-treatment exclusion under Section 3(i), that a claim amendment made during prosecution impermissibly broadened the claims under Section 59, and that insufficient comparative data of synergistic effect was shown under Section 3(e).
Free to read once you are signed in
Read the rest of this case note
The findings, the decision and the principle the court settled on are below. Create a free account to keep reading. No payment, and nothing to cancel.
Already have an account? Sign in
We use your details to give you access and to contact you about your enquiry. See our privacy policy.
Cases cited
- Nippon A&L Inc. v. The Controller of Patents, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1909
Authorities referred to in the decision. Please verify each citation in the judgment itself.
Keywords
Claim Amendment Inventive Step Patent Prosecution Section 3(i) Section 59 Synergy
Read the judgment
More Patents judgments
Patents
Array 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 ArtPatentsBayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
A compulsory licence under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970 may be granted where the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to a patented invention have not been satisfied, the invention is not available at a reason…
Compulsory LicencePublic HealthReasonably Affordable PriceSection 84PatentsBigtec Private Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
An objection that devising nucleotide probes or primers is routine experimentation lacking inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) must engage with evidence of unexpected effects placed on record; and the Section 3(c) exclusion for …
BiotechnologyInventive StepPatent ProsecutionPrior Art