Disposed

Helion Biotech Aps v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designss

Madras HC4 Sept 2023(T)CMA(PT)/30/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned order rejecting the patent application for antibodies to MASP-2. The matter was remanded for the limited purpose of considering Claims 1-27 by a different officer within four months, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the original rejection.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order set aside; matter remanded for consideration of amended claims by a different officer within four months.

Helion Biotech Aps Vs Assistant Controller of Patents… — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

(T) CMA (PT) No.30 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.09.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

(T) CMA (PT) No.30 of 2023 [(OA)/1/2016/PT/CH]

¶7

Helion Biotech ApS Egholmvej 10, Vanlose – DK – 2720 Denmark.

¶8

.. Appellant vs

¶9

Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs Government of India, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Rights Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. Respondent

¶10

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970 against an order of the respondent dated 21.08.2015 in No.3349/CHENP/2005.

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karthikeyan SPC

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

The appellant had applied for grant of a patent in respect of

¶14

antibodies to Mannan-Binding Lectin-Associated Serine Protease 2 (MASP-2). In response to such application, the First Examination Report (FER) was submitted on 01.06.2011. The appellant responded thereto on 16.04.2012. Eventually, by order dated

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/4

¶17

(T) CMA (PT) No.30 of 2023

¶18

21.08.2015, the application for grant of patent was rejected inter-alia on the ground that the claimed patent did not qualify as an invention both in terms of Section 2(1)(j) and Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Patents Act). The impugned order also records the finding that some of the amended claims are outside the scope of Section 59(1) of the Patents Act.

¶19

When the matter was pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, the appellant filed an application for permission to seek consideration of claims that were further amended after the appeal was filed.

¶20

Upon obtaining instructions, Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned SPC, submits that the Controller of Patents is willing to examine such amended claims without making any concession on the merits of the application.

¶21

In view of the above submission, without expressing any opinion on the merits of impugned order dated 21.08.2015, the said order is set aside and the matter is remanded for the limited purpose of considering the amended claims placed before this Court as Claims 1 to 27 by the appellant. The appellant is directed to file

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

2/4

¶24

(T) CMA (PT) No.30 of 2023

¶25

such amended claims before the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In order to preclude the possibility of any pre-determination, the amended claims of the appellant shall be considered by any officer, other than the officer who passed the impugned order. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant, a reasoned order shall be passed within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt of amended claims from the appellant.

¶26

The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs.

¶27

04.09.2023

¶28

Index:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes ssm

¶29

¶30

The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs Government of India, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Rights Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

3/4

¶33

(T) CMA (PT) No.30 of 2023

¶34

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

¶35

ssm

¶36

(T) CMA (PT) No.30 of 2023 [(OA)/1/2016/PT/CH]

¶37

04.09.2023

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

4/4

Helion Biotech Aps v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designss

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Helion Biotech Aps v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designss

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha Vs Sharp Tools

N.C.Nanu Vs The Registrar of Trade Marks

Sony Kabushiki Kaisha also trading as sony Corporation Vs Walkman Rubber Industries

M.S. Earthevents ( I) Private Limited Vs Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks

M/s Sanit Gobain Glass France and another Vs M/s Csg Holding Company Ltd.

Infinitheism Spiritual Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Mr. N. Sivasankaran, Vs The Registrar of Trade Marks