Vrije Universiteit Brussel v. Controller of Patents and Designs

Delhi High Court · 08 Aug 2023 · 2023:DHC:5616

C. Hari Shankar

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 10/2023

2023:DHC:5616

intellectual_property appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed the patent appeal and directed grant of the patent for specified claims after the appellant agreed to amend Claim 9 as suggested by the Controller of Patents.

Full Text

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 10/2023 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 10/2023 & I.A. 14164/2023 VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Adv.

VERSUS

CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS.... Respondent
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, Mr. Srish Mishra, Mr. Alexander Paikaday, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR O R D E R (ORAL)
08.08.2023

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been preferred against order dated 30 November 2022, whereby the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs has rejected the Application No. 20171702001 filed by the applicant for registration of a patent in respect of “IN VITRO MATURATION OF A MAMMALIAN CUMULUS OOCYTE COMPLEX”.

2. The application had eighteen claims. Of these, the appellant is pressing Claims 1 to 3, 8 and 9.

3. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned CGSC for the respondent, submits, on instructions that the respondent is willing to grant a patent to the appellant in respect of claims 1 to 3 and 8 as filed, and that in respect of Claim 9, the respondent is willing to grant the patent as filed, subject to deletion, by the appellant, of the words “instructions for use of the kit, in Claim 9(e)” C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 10/2023

4. The amended claim would read thus:

“9. A kit for in vitro maturation of an immature

mammalian cumulus oocyte complex, the kit comprising:

(a) a collection medium comprising natural or man- made chemical compounds inhibiting naturally occurring phosphodiesterases or natural inhibitors of oocyte meiosis;

(b) a capacitation medium according to any one of claims 1 to 3;

(d) non-adherent or adherent culture plates; “

“

5. Mr. Anand submits, on instructions, that his client is willing to effect the said deletion in Claim 9.

6. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar submits, on instructions, that, in that case, a patent can also be granted in respect of the said claim.

7. In view thereof, the dispute does not survive for consideration on merits.

8. The Controller General of Patents is directed to grant a patent to the appellant in respect of Claims 1 to 3, 8 and 9 (as amended).

2,067 characters total

9. The impugned order dated 30 November 2022 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs stands set aside to the said extent.

10. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

AUGUST 8, 2023

Vrije Universiteit Brussel v. Controller of Patents and Designs

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation