{"id":8860,"date":"2025-09-18T06:54:45","date_gmt":"2025-09-18T06:54:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=8860"},"modified":"2025-09-18T06:57:09","modified_gmt":"2025-09-18T06:57:09","slug":"partial-rejection-of-patent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/partial-rejection-of-patent\/","title":{"rendered":"Partial Rejection of Patent"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Patent_Case_BASE_SE_Vs_Deputy_Controller_of_Patents_and_Designs\"><\/span>Patent Case: BASE SE Vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Fact\"><\/span>Fact<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The matter concerns the rejection of a patent application by the Deputy Controller and its subsequent appeal under the Patents Act, 1970. The case began with a patent application filed on 26 February 2009 titled <em>&#8220;Pesticidal Mixtures Comprising an Anthranilamide Compound.&#8221;<\/em> It originally contained 24 claims related to a chemical mixture used to protect plants from harmful fungi and pests.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/partial-rejection-of-patent\/#Patent_Case_BASE_SE_Vs_Deputy_Controller_of_Patents_and_Designs\" >Patent Case: BASE SE Vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/partial-rejection-of-patent\/#Fact\" >Fact<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/partial-rejection-of-patent\/#Partial_Allowance_of_Claims\" >Partial Allowance of Claims<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/partial-rejection-of-patent\/#The_Appeal\" >The Appeal<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/partial-rejection-of-patent\/#Discussion\" >Discussion<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/partial-rejection-of-patent\/#Partial_Grant_of_Patent\" >Partial Grant of Patent<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/partial-rejection-of-patent\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/partial-rejection-of-patent\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>The application was subjected to the examination process under the provisions of the Patents Act, and a First Examination Report (FER) dated 13 October 2014 objected to the claims under sections 2(ij), 3(e), 3(h), and 3(i). The applicant then amended the claims, reducing them to 18 and modifying the invention&#8217;s title.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Partial_Allowance_of_Claims\"><\/span>Partial Allowance of Claims<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>After successive hearings and further amendments, claims 1 to 9 and 17 were accepted, while claims 10 to 16 were rejected under section 3(h) of the Act. The Deputy Controller directed the applicant to amend the rejected claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Appeal\"><\/span>The Appeal<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The appellant challenged this decision on several grounds: that section 3(h) was wrongly applied, there was a violation of natural justice due to inadequate hearing opportunities, and partial grant of patent was warranted. The appellant supported their case by referencing several judgments, including <em>Siemens Engineering Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Union of India<\/em> and other unreported decisions relevant to patent law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On the other side, the respondent argued that the impugned order was passed under section 21 of the Patents Act and hence not appealable. They also held that no partial patent grant was permissible under the law, and the appellant&#8217;s contentions had no merit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion\"><\/span>Discussion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court meticulously examined the legal provisions relevant to the issues. Sections 3(h), 3(i), 3(j), 15, and 21 of the Patents Act, 1970, formed the backbone of the legal analysis. Section 3(h) excludes methods of agriculture or horticulture from patentability. Section 3(i) excludes plants and animals except micro-organisms and biological processes related to their propagation. Sections 15 and 21 govern the Controller&#8217;s power to refuse and the time frames for compliance and abandonment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Importantly, the Court emphasized that the exclusion under section 3(h) is policy-driven, aimed at preserving traditional agricultural practices from monopolization. The Court relied on recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee and judicial pronouncements such as <em>Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd.<\/em> and recent unreported decisions from the Delhi and Calcutta High Courts. It clarified that section 3(h) excludes pure agricultural methods but does not bar technical, scientific innovations at the interface of agriculture and chemistry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The impugned order was criticized for failing to distinguish between a pure method of agriculture and human scientific inventions embodied in chemical mixtures. The Court found no reasoning in the order to support the application of section 3(h), holding that this represents a narrow exception to patentability that does not include inventions like the present one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Partial_Grant_of_Patent\"><\/span>Partial Grant of Patent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Regarding the issue of partial patent grant, the Court categorically held that the legislative scheme does not allow splitting claims within a single application into granted and rejected parts. The applicant must put the entire application in order for grant. Partial grants would disrupt the unity of invention principle and encourage legal uncertainty. Instead, rejected claims could be pursued via separate divisional applications under section 16 of the Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Finally, the Court dealt with procedural challenges about appealability and natural justice. It distinguished the impugned order as a decision under section 15 rather than a deemed abandonment under section 21, allowing the appeal to proceed. It further held that the appellant had not abandoned the application and had responded to objections within prescribed timelines, negating any claim of procedural unfairness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It directed the Controller of Patents and Designs to reconsider the application afresh, complying with statutory procedures and principles within three months. The Court emphasized proper hearing rights for the applicant and clarified that the Controller was not bound by this order&#8217;s observations, maintaining judicial neutrality on merits pending re-examination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This judgment significantly clarifies the interpretation of sections 3(h) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, reinforcing the limited scope of exclusions and safeguarding the patent rights of innovations that intersect with agriculture but involve human technical intervention. It also reaffirms procedural safeguards in patent prosecution and rejects any notion of partial patent grants, emphasizing statutory coherence and legal certainty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> BASE SE Vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Order Date:<\/strong> 16 September 2025<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> IPDPTA 3 of 2023<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> High Court at Calcutta<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Name of Hon&#8217;ble Judge:<\/strong> Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Patent Case: BASE SE Vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs Fact The matter concerns the rejection of a patent application by the Deputy Controller and its subsequent appeal under the Patents Act, 1970. The case began with a patent application filed on 26 February 2009 titled &#8220;Pesticidal Mixtures Comprising an Anthranilamide Compound.&#8221; It originally<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-8860","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8860","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8860"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8860\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8860"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8860"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}