QUIZ

Find the possible outcome of the case by applying the already learned
principles on Revocation and Opposition
Case 1:Device used for manually hauling agricultural produce

One device to collect agricultural produce was patented by

DhanpatSheth.
He made this device so flexible that it can fit to persons of varying
height and size.

Traditional v New plastic design

 Answer
The patent was revoked on the ground of lack of novelty (Section 2(1)
(ja)), mere duplication of traditionally known component known as
“Kilta” (Section 3(p)) and mere replacement of raw material as plastic
has been used in the patented product whereas bamboo was used in kilta
[Section 3(d)]
 Case 2:
The Oncomouse, engineered for the express purpose of developing tumors, was announced in a 1984
paper by Harvard researchers Philip Leder and Timothy Stewart and Paul Pattengale at the
University of Southern California. Their efforts were intended to meet a need for animal models to
study cancer in intact living organisms

Question :
The Oncomouse, genetically modified to develop cancer for the purposes of medical research is
patentable ?
 Answer
USA India
Oncomouse, an animal that made scientific and legal Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd
history as the first transgenic mammal to be the judgment further added to the case for GM and living
subject of a United States patent organism patents. In this case, the honourable
Supreme Court held that genetically modified cotton
In Diamond V Chakarabarty the US SC held that seeds were patentable, and allowed the U.S. company,
anything under the sun is patentable as long as it Monsanto, to file their patent claims. Hence it can be
fulfills the criteria laid under the act. argued that oncomouse shall be granted patent as :
1. Microorganisms are now patentable,
2. Animal models are very close to human disease
and hence contribute significantly to the process
of drug discovery

But it can also be argued otherwise as :

Section 3(b). An invention the primary or intended use

or commercial exploitation of which could be contrary
to public order or morality or which causes serious
prejudice to human, animal or plant life or health or to
the environment
Case 3 :
• Company X was granted a Patent on a product containing Jamun, Chandan, and
Lavangpatti, which was anticipated to be used in for the treatment of diabetes.
• The Central Government of India, revoked the Patent granted to the company
Avesthagen by the Indian Patent Office under Section 66 of the Indian Patents Act.
The ground of rejection was that the Patent is detrimental to the public interest
at large and is also mischievous.
• The company Avesthagen argument that though it was traditional knowledge, but the
circumstance that when the plants are used in the particular combination specified in
Patent, the plants show a faster effect.
• On the other hand, the Central Government argued and proved that the fact that
these plants specified in the specifications of Patent are used for the management of
diabetes for a very long period and was known to the public at large for centuries.
 Answer
The court agreed with the Central Government argument that it is very obvious that
the extracts plants will perform the same function.
Hence, the Court held that the grant of Patent could not be done just for re-
validating a traditional knowledge.
Case 4 :
• A patent owned by Kibow Biotech Inc, which is a dietary supplement that aids in the
functioning of the kidney.
• In the writ petition, the validity of the patent was challenged under Section 3(e) of the
Patents Act stating that it was “a substance obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in
the aggregation of the properties of the components thereof or a process for producing
such substance
• But there was no expert evidence provided by the party opposing the patent. now the case
is before the HC that Patent shall be revoked.

Issue: What are the shortcomings of the patent revocation attempt in light of failing to
substantiate its case by submitting expert evidence in support of its claims
Answer : La Renon Health Care Pvt., Ltd. vs.
UOI and others
• The Madras High Court laid much emphasis on the importance of expert
advice in the technicalities of matters as reliance could not be placed
merely on documents and arguments.

• The court also surmised that the burden of proof when a patent is
challenged lay on the person making the challenge.

• The court held that a finding to revoke the patent could not have been
given without the help of a scientific adviser and/or technical expert’s
evidence
Case 5 :
Mr. A was granted patent for Electro-Mechanical Sexual Stimulation
Device. the vibration apparatus provides for a vibration device in a
conical shape for vibration on specific points to derive sexual pleasure. 

In a suit for infringement of Patent there was a counterclaim made that

patent shall be revoked under Sec.64 and it was argued that it was not
patentable.
 Answer
Its intended use or commercial exploitation was perceived by the court as
contrary to public order or morality hence the patent was rejected based on
ground Section 3(b).
An invention will not be patentable if:
• its primary use is immoral;
• its intended use is immoral; or
• its commercial exploitation is immoral.
Suprisingly patents are granted when it comes to inventions relating to
molecules, extracts, and compositions that enhance libido, sexual pleasure
and/or enhanced sexual activity.
 An Alternate Argument
• In NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA, the Supreme Court held
that an individual’s sexual identity, orientation, intimacy and choices form part of basic
human rights of people, and any intrusion into such areas would amount to violation of
fundamental rights
• The sexual right of an individual extends to sexual pleasure, stimulation and action using
devices, apparatus or any means, and social morality cannot trump such a right. In other
words, using, intending to use sexual aids, devices or instruments is an individual’s
personal choice and no one can interfere or judge such a usage based on perceptions of
social morality.
• If an individual’s use of such devices cannot be judged by standards of social morality,
neither can their patentability be subject to such a determination. Going by the language of
Section 3(b), if the primary or intended use of a  sexual invention is not immoral, the
invention also cannot be immoral. If the use is not immoral, how can the sale, offering for
sale, or any manner of commercial exploitation of the invention be immoral?
Case 6: Description of the Invention
The invention relates generally to the changes in gene expression in human
pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

The invention relates specifically to a human gene family which is differentially

expressed in cancerous pancreatic tissues compared to corresponding non-cancerous
pancreatic tissues.
Case 3:Gene Family (LBFL313) Associated
with Pancreatic Cancer
Answer
• Section 3(d) of the Patents Act 1970 was amended in 2005 as follows:
the simple discovery of a new form of a known substance which fails to
result in the improvement of the known efficacy of that substance or the
simple discovery of any new attribute or new utility for a known
substance or of the mere application of a known method, machine or
apparatus unless such known method results in a new product or
employs at least one new reactant

Hence not patentable