In This Issue

IPO issues guidelines for examining Biotechnology Applications

Indian IPR Decision on:
LG Electronics India Private Limited v/s Bharat Bhogilal Patel

HK Avenue, 19, Swastik Society
Ahmedabad - 380 009. INDIA
Phone : +91 79 26425258/ 5259
Fax : +91 79 26425262 / 5263
Email :
Web :

2123, Stanford Avenue Mountain View, CA 94040
United States of America
House No. 145 (Ground floor),
Mohammodia Housing Society,
Dhaka 1209 Bangladesh
Tel : 880 2 9127849
Web :
E-102, First Floor,Lloyds Estate Sangam Nagar,
Mumbai - 400 037. INDIA
Phone : +91 22 24187744

Shivani Complex, Kanta Stri Vikas Gruh Road
Rajkot - 360 002. INDIA
Phone : +91 281 242 731


Guest House Road,
Morbi - 363 641 INDIA


IPO issues guidelines for examining Biotechnology Applications


Biotechnology and the inventions arising out of it have spurred the creative geniuses of many inventors and have played an important role in improving the nation’s health, food supply and environment. To enhance the quality of the patents granted under the biotechnology Indian Patent Office has recently published Guidelines for Examining the Biotechnology applications. The guidelines have been designed in consideration to provide uniform and consistent practice in the examination of patent applications in the field of Biotechnology and the allied subjects under the Patents Act, 1970.

The overview of the listed issues under the guidelines is as follows;

       Till 2002, as per the prevailing practice in the Patent Office, patents were not granted for inventions relating to living entities of natural or artificial origin, biological materials or other materials having replicating properties, substances derived from such materials and any processes for the production of living substances/entities including nucleic acids. However, patents could be granted for processes of producing non-living substances by chemical processes, bioconversion and microbiological processes using micro-organisms or biological materials. Now, by publishing this guideline patent office has elaborated the bases of examination procedure to maintain transparency.

       In case of product by process claims it is specified that the claimed products cannot be considered novel merely due to the novelty in the processes by which they are produced, but rather novelty can only be established, if technical evidences are provided showing that the modifications in the processes result in other products, which are distinct with regard to their properties over the products known in the prior art. Same way in case of polynucleotide sequences and combination/composition of claims have been described to clear the novelty analysis.

     In the case of polypeptide sequence if the sequence is disclosed prior without any indication of its activity would considered as an anticipation but if prior art doesn’t exactly match with the sequence then it is considered as novel and examined further for inventive step. For composition claims also if prior art discloses all the features then the subject matter lacks novelty.

For biotechnological inventions same inventive step principle applies. If a polynucleotide/polypeptide having mutation(s) in a known polynucleotide/polypeptide, which does not result in significant change in activity of the claimed polynucleotide/polypeptide, then the subject matter of such claims cannot be said to be inventive.

According to the guideline minor difference in the yield or activity does not constitute as an unexpected property and makes invention non-obvious.

Apart from novelty and inventive step criteria, the guidelines also describe another important patentability criteria i.e. Industrial application as well. It was elaborated for industrial application that “In the context of the gene sequences, it may be said that whatever ingenuity is involved in discovering a gene sequence, one cannot have a patent for it or a protein encoded by it unless it is disclosed how it can be used. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the invention claimed has a useful purpose and whether the specification identifies any practical way of using it”. Biotechnology deals with living subject matters and involves alteration of genomic materials of organisms and hence guidelines have provided many examples to clarify the examination in case of the inventions falls under Section 3 of the Indian Patent Act in addition.

It can be observed on the whole that while designing the guidelines, the Indian Patent Office has made due care and that can reflect by including issue of “Sufficiency of disclosure, Clarity and Support of the claims and unity of inventions”.

Furthermore, guidelines have covered Biodiversity related issues to consider as important as the other requirements. It is noted that to facilitate biodiversity issues, more emphasis is given on Section 10 of the Patents Act, 1970, according to which disclosure of the source and geographical origin of the biological material is mandatory in an application for patent when the said material is used in the invention. In addition, a declaration by the applicant regarding the required permission from the competent authority (NBA) in Form 1 of the Patents Rules, 2003 is made compulsory by the Indian Patent Office.

Finally, it is always noted that patenting in the field of biotechnology poses challenges to the applicants and hence this specific guidelines provide crystal clear transparency to improve the examination procedure will be helpful to the examiners as well to the applicants.



Indian IPR Decision on

2012 (49) PTC 170(Del)

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd ……………Plaintiff
Bharat Bhogilal Patel & Others .………… Defendant



        The plaintiff LG Electronics India Private Limited, is a company incorporated under Companies Act 1956, having its registered office at New Delhi, carrying out business of electronics goods, imported from Korea. The plaintiff is an importer at various Indian ports one of them being Mumbai Air Cargo Complex, holding status of an “Accredited Client” under (ACP) of the Ministry Of Finance, Government of India, enjoying privileges and using Green Channel for clearance of all its goods imported without examination at Indian Ports on the basis of self-assessment.

       The defendant No. 1 is an individual, who claims to have obtained a patent for process titled as “A Process of manufacturing engraved design articles on metals or non-metals” under Patent No. 189027. The defendant No. 2 and 3 are Commissioners of Customs (import), under section 3 of Custom Act, 1962 located at Mumbai and Delhi. The defendant No.1 filed a complaint with defendant No. 2 against the plaintiff and various other importers which are importing products using laser marking and engraving process which was infringing his patent rights under patent No. 189027. The defendant No.2 & 3 were restricting the plaintiff’s consignment on the basis of alleged patent obtained or on the complaint made by defendant No. 1.

      The plaintiff filed a revocation petition challenging the validity of impugned patent as it lacked novelty as well as any inventive step being obvious to person skilled in the art of applying of laser engraving. Plaintiff argued that instead of filing the suit for infringement of patent, the defendant No. 1 has filed a complaint before defendant no. 2 thus the objection raised is not sustainable. Moreover the defendants 2 & 3 cannot restrict clearance of plaintiff’s consignments as plaintiff is holding status of an “Accredited Client” under (ACP) of Government of India.

       The Hon’ble High Court Of Delhi held that the question of jurisdiction has to be decided on merit after filing the written statement by the defendants and the objection raised by defendant is without force and complain made by defendant No.2 is not tenable as it is contrary to clause 4 of the notification dated 29.10.2007 issued by the Government of India. As in clause 4 of the notification dated 29.10.2007, it is clearly mentioned that in case of three violations of Patents, Designs and Geographical Indications are concerned, unless the offences have already been established by a judicial pronouncement in India, the custom department cannot take action contrary to clause 4. Commissioner of Customs or officers of Customs are merely implementing agencies to enforce the order passed by the court. Thus, prima facie case has been made out and Ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted to the plaintiff.



   Contributed by : Kavita Shah -Technical Expert
   Contributed by : Khevna D. Shah - Litigation Officer
   Designed By : Vikash Singh

   [Email :]

Copyright © 2012. H K ACHARYA & COMPANY