Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of case, factual Background procedural detail, Core dispute
This case revolves around a patent application for a composition involving human embryonic stem cells and their derivatives, along with methods for their use and preparation. Geeta Shroff filed the patent application numbered 3853/COL/MP-2008 on 22 September 2008 with the Patent Office in Kolkata. After requesting examination, the Patent Office issued a First Examination Report, to which Shroff responded, and later submitted written submissions along with amended claims 1-56 following a hearing. On 24 September 2018, the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejected the application mainly under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, finding it contrary to public order or morality due to the involvement of human embryos. Shroff then appealed this rejection under Section 117A of the Patents Act to the Calcutta High Court, Intellectual Property Rights Division, arguing violation of natural justice principles and misinterpretation of the law. The core dispute centered on whether the invention, which derives stem cells from the inner cell mass of 2 to 7-day-old human embryos using immunological or mechanical methods, necessarily destroys embryos, making its commercial exploitation unethical and non-patentable under Section 3(b).
detailed reasoning and discussion by court including on judgement with complete citation referred and discussed for reasoning decision
The court thoroughly examined Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, which states that an invention is not patentable if its primary or intended use or commercial exploitation could be contrary to public order or morality or causes serious prejudice to human, animal or plant life or health or to the environment. The judge explained that this provision looks at four key aspects: the main purpose of the invention, its potential for harmful commercial use, its impact on public order or morality, and whether it seriously harms life or health, with the word "serious" added in the 2002 Amendment to ensure only significant risks are barred. The court noted that patent law must balance innovation with ethics, especially in biology, and Section 3(b) acts as a safeguard against inventions harming life or going against moral standards.
Drawing from international standards, the court referred to Article 53(a) of the Paris Convention, which excludes inventions against "ordre public or morality," meant to deny patents for things likely to cause riots, public disorder, or offensive behavior. It cited Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) 3 S.C.R. 519, where the European Patent Office clarified that "ordre public" protects public security, individual integrity, and the environment, excluding inventions breaching peace or seriously prejudicing the environment. The judgment also discussed long-standing patent principles against immoral inventions, listing examples like human cloning, germ line genetic modification, and commercial use of human embryos, and referenced Prathiba M. Singh on Patent Law, Edition-1, Vol-I at page 140, which highlights the controversy around defining a human embryo, its use, and industrial purposes.
Applying this to the invention, the court upheld the Controller's order, finding that embryonic stem cells are derived destructively from early-stage human embryos (2-7 days old), a delicate phase of human life formation that risks damage or miscarriage. The process involves collecting these embryos in minimal essential medium and extracting cells, leading to embryo destruction, which is unethical and fits Section 3(b) as contrary to public morality and order. The court emphasized that the impugned order was well-reasoned, considered all arguments, and aligned with the National Guidelines for Stem Cell Research 2017, despite stem cell advances in regenerative therapies. It refused to interfere, stating no illegality, irrationality, or error in law existed, and courts should not second-guess experts in such complex ethical matters. Thus, the appeal IPDPTA 88 of 2023 was dismissed on 17 November 2025.
Concluding Note
This judgment reinforces that ethical boundaries, particularly around human embryos, override patent rights under Section 3(b), prioritizing public morality and life protection over scientific promise. It serves as a caution for biotech inventors to ensure processes avoid destructive embryo use, aligning Indian law with global norms while respecting national guidelines.
Case Title: Shroff Geeta Vs Controller Of Patents And Design
Order date: 17.11.2025
Case Number: IPDPTA/88/2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:CalHC:IPDPTA88
Name of Court: High Court at Calcutta, Original Side (Intellectual Property Rights Division)
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggested 5 Suitable titles for this legal analytical article:
Embryonic Stem Cells and Moral Boundaries: Decoding Section 3(b) in Shroff v. Controller of Patents
Patenting Human Embryos? Calcutta High Court's Ethical Stand in Geeta Shroff's Appeal
Morality Over Innovation: Rejecting Stem Cell Patents Under India's Patents Act
Destructive Derivation of Stem Cells: A Section 3(b) Analysis from Calcutta High Court
Public Order, Ethics, and Patents: Lessons from Shroff Geeta v. Asst. Controller
- ======
Calcutta High Court Dismisses Patent Appeal on Human Embryonic Stem Cells in Shroff Geeta v. Asst. Controller of Patents (IPDPTA/88/2023, Order dated 17.11.2025, Hon'ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, J., High Court at Calcutta, Original Side, Intellectual Property Rights Division)
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the rejection of a patent application for a composition involving human embryonic stem cells derived from 2-7 day old embryos, ruling it non-patentable under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, as its commercial exploitation is contrary to public order and morality. Geeta Shroff's application (No. 3853/COL/MP-2008, filed 22 September 2008) was dismissed by the Assistant Controller on 24 September 2018 after examination, response to the First Examination Report, and amended claims, prompting this appeal under Section 117A. The court found the process destructively extracts cells from embryo inner cell mass, risking harm to early human life stages and aligning with ethical prohibitions akin to human cloning or germ line modification.
Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur emphasized Section 3(b)'s focus on primary use, commercial harm potential, and serious prejudice to life or health, referencing Article 53(a) of the Paris Convention, Harvard College v. Canada 3 S.C.R. 519, Prathiba M. Singh on Patent Law, and National Guidelines for Stem Cell Research 2017. Dismissing the appeal, the court held the Controller's order reasoned, non-violative of natural justice, and undeserving of interference in expert ethical assessments, prioritizing morality over innovation.
Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi
====
