Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
University College London – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.05.2024 rejecting Patent Application No.8266/CHENP/2014 for grant of patent for an invention titled 'A Delayed Release Drug Formulation'. The parent Patent Application No.5924/CHENP/2008 was titled 'Colonic Drug Delivery Formulation'. Patent was granted in respect thereof under Patent No.531129 on 30.03.2024. The granted claims therein comprised independent claims 1 and 23, which are as under:
'1. A delayed release drug formulation comprising a particle with a core and a coating for the core, the core comprising a drug and the coating comprising a mixture of a first material which is susceptible to attack by colonic bacteria and a second material which is a film-forming polymeric material having a pH threshold at pH 6.5 or above, wherein the first material comprises a polysaccharide selected from the group consisting of amylopectin, and starch comprising 0.1 wt % to 75 wt % amylose and wherein a ratio of the first material to the second material in the mixture is from 15:85 to 50:50.'
'23. A method of preparing a delayed release drug formulation as claimed in claim 1, said method comprising:
forming a core comprising a dr
A divisional patent application can be filed unilaterally by the applicant, provided it relates to more than one invention, and the Controller must assess this requirement.
A divisional application under the Patents Act requires the existence of more than one invention in the parent application; failure to demonstrate plurality results in denial.
A divisional patent application must be filed before the grant of a parent application; filing post-grant is impermissible under Section 16(1) of the Patents Act.
The requirement of 'plurality of inventions' should be tested based upon the disclosure made in either the provisional or complete specifications.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a divisional patent application must be distinct from the parent application, and the reasons for rejection of a patent application should be ....
The court emphasized the importance of the Controller applying its mind to the facts and materials before it and deemed it appropriate to assume jurisdiction due to the non-application of mind by the....
An interlocutory injunction can be granted if infringement is established, and no credible challenge to patent validity is presented, even when prior publications and claims are involved.
The discretion to allow additional written statements under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC is broad, particularly when trial has not commenced, aimed at advancing justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
