Background:
Hygieia, Inc. filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the rejection of their patent application for 'Systems, Methods and Devices for Achieving Glycemic Balance' by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The application, filed in 2013, was rejected in 2019 under Sections 2(1)(ja), 3(d), 3(k), and 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant's invention aimed to provide treatment guidance for diabetes, with claims based on a U.S. patent application that allowed for method patents, which are non-patentable under Indian law.
Arguments:
Appellant's Arguments: The appellant argued that the Patent Controller erred by focusing solely on the objection under Section 59 and not considering other objections in light of their written submissions. They contended that their amended claims did not exceed the original specifications and that the method claims were adequately supported by the original application, including figures and descriptions of the device.
Respondent's Arguments: The respondent maintained that the appellant's claims exceeded the original specifications and that the method claims were not patentable under Indian law.
Judgment:
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to a different controller for de novo consideration. The court emphasized that the claims and specifications must be read together, and the amended claims did not exceed the original specifications. The court directed the new controller to dispose of the matter within six months.
Conclusion:
The High Court of Judicature at Madras overturned the rejection of Hygieia, Inc.'s patent application, highlighting the importance of considering the entirety of the patent application and its amendments in the context of Indian patent law.
Case Citation: Hygieia, Inc. Vs. Government of India, Patent Office: (T)CMA(PT) No.153 of 2023 : 12.03.2024:Madras High Court: N. Seshasayee: H.J.
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
