CASE TITLE – Allergan INC vs Controller of Patents, C.A. (COMM. IPD-PAT) 22/2021,
FACTS OF THE CASE –
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has overturned an order by the Controller of Patents against a US-based pharmaceutical company Allergan i.e. the Appellant in the present case. The Appellant, in its patent application for methods for treating ocular ailments using the intracameral implants has submitted 20 claims in India, as filed in the US.
The Controller in the First Examination Report (FER) objected to the claims, holding them non-patentable under Section 3(i) of the Patent Act, pursuant to which, the Applicant proposed to amend the claims to a product patent. The Controller refused the application on the sole ground that amendments made in the claims is beyond the scope of the originally filed claims.
ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES –
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that the original claims drafted were ‘method of treatment’ as filed (in the US) that have to be amended to ‘composition’ claims which should be allowed while filing in India as it is in accordance with national phase application.
Applicant also pleaded that the key features and characteristics were present in the original claims and therefore the proposed amendment should be accepted
Contentions of the Respondent
Respondent contended that the amendments sought are not allowed u/s 59(1) of the Patents, Act, 1970 as it prescribes that the amended claim did not fall wholly within the scope of original claim
Respondent further took reference of Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act and submitted that complete specification should end with the actual claim or claims defining the scope of the invention and therefore, claims are only a part of, and cannot be equated with, the complete specifications.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT –
Whether the amendment of the claims as originally filed by the Appellant could have been allowed under section 59(1) of the Patents Act, 1970
JUDGMENT –
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the Controller’s interpretation of Section 59(1) of the Patents Act was incorrect and, if accepted, would prevent the Applicant from obtaining a patent for the implants in India. The Court emphasized that public interest is a crucial aspect of patent law, especially when it comes to pharmaceutical or therapeutic patents.
The claims and complete specifications in a patent have to be read together and as a whole. The claims have to be understood in the light of the complete specifications. They form an integrated whole, and cannot be treated as two distinct parts of one document. The Hon’ble Court was of the opinion that the Controller ought to have allowed the amendments and to have examined the claims amended, and their patentability, on merits, and should not have dismissed the amendments merely on the ‘somewhat tenuous’ ground that the Applicant was not entitled to amend its claims in view of Section 59(1) of the Patents Act.
The Court overruled the Controller’s decision and allowed the Applicant to amend the originally filed claims on the basis of product which was claimed in the amended claims. Additionally, the Court ordered a new examination report from the controller that considers the Act and principles of natural justice, and provides the Applicant with a fair opportunity to be heard without influencing the patentability of the amended claims.
K S&Co COMMENTS –
This case law is indeed a welcome development with regard to amendment in claims Claim amendment within the scope of the invention at the pre-grant stage should not be out rightly rejected without examining the other aspects of patentability.
Further, the legislative intent is that no new subject matter should be added to the claims which has not been disclosed in the originally filed specification. So long as the invention is disclosed in the specification and the claims are being restricted to the disclosures already made in the specification, the amendment ought not to be rejected.
Leave a Reply