Article
Method of supplementing animal feed is not a method of treatment, High Court clarifies By Eeshita Das and Dr. Malathi Lakshmikumaran
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses a recent judgement of the Madras High Court which has held that a method of supplementing animal feed does not qualify as a method of treatment to render the animal free of disease or to increase their economic value or that of their products, as enshrined in Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. Elaborately discussing the facts of the case, arguments of the parties, and the decision of the Court, the authors highlight that for patent applicants, the judgement provides some direction as to the kind of language that can be used to reduce the chances of receiving an objection under Section 3(i). They also advise that if the applicant intends to pursue a method claim, it is advisable to avoid the use of language such as ‘improving performance in an animal’.
Ratio decidendi
- Registration as copyright society or being a member of such society whether mandatory to be able to issue license for exploiting assigned copyrighted work – Supreme Court stays Delhi High Court decisions
- Patents – Exclusion under Section 3(d) only applies to a single know process – Combining processes from multiple prior arts not leads to exclusion under Section 3(d) – Madras High Court
- Patents – Finding of ‘mere admixture’, without considering experimental data and therapeutic efficacy is fatal – Calcutta High Court
- Patents – Section 3(b) is the intent principle and not the effect or harm principle – Calcutta High Court
- Patents – Pre-grant opposition is not maintainable after grant of patent, even if the same is not uploaded on official website – Delhi High Court
- Patent not rejectable under Section 3(m) merely because it is a pure method claim, which does not result in a product – Madras High Court
- Trademarks – Registration of mark ‘Parliament’ is not prohibited – Delhi High Court
- Mark ‘BharatStamp’ is inherently distinctive and can be registered – Delhi High Court
- Order passed on an application for temporary injunction is an exercise of discretion and is not prima facie adjudication – Bombay High Court Larger Bench
News Nuggets
- Copyright infringement in music – Determinative test is whether the soul of the composition has been copied
- Trademark Registry directed to encourage e-filing of documents, affidavits, etc.
- Mark not to be refused registration merely because it consists of combination of numbers
- Trademarks ‘Modern’ and ‘Mardem’ are phonetically and deceptively similar, thus causing confusion
- Delay in disposal of patent application violates natural justice
- India sets up panel to review whether copyright law is sufficient to tackle AI
- Biodiversity – New Regulations notified to guide sharing of benefits for use of biological resources
- Draft guidelines on similar biologics released
- USA retains India in ‘Priority Watch List’ in 2025
- Attempts to secure pharma patents through minor innovations criticized
- GI tags for Meghalaya’s Ryndia and Khasi handloom products, and Gajendragad sarees
