Draft patent manual 2008

Rather, the new definition merely calls for a new, non-obvious and useful product or process. As noted above, the court determined the vaccine was new and useful and made no discussion about the end product containing living material in reaching this conclusion. For example, section 3 j was added to the Patents Act after this case and now excludes essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals from the definition of invention.

Anand Chakrabarty,[17] started a new jurisprudence with respect to biotech patentability. In This case Respondent filed a patent application relating to his invention of a human-made, genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil, a property which is possessed by no naturally occurring bacteria. A patent examiner's rejection of the patent application's claims for the new bacteria was affirmed by the Patent Office Board of Appeals on the ground that living things are not patentable subject matter under The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed, concluding that the fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of the patent.

In this case patent claims were of three types: first, process claims for the method of producing bacteria; second, claims for an inoculum comprising a carrier material floating on water, such as straw and the new bacteria; and the third, claims to the bacteria themselves. The patent examiner accepted the first two claims but rejected third claim on the basis of product of nature and living things are non patentable under US laws.

Respondent's micro-organism constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within that statute. In choosing such expansive terms as "manufacture" and "composition of matter," modified by the comprehensive "any," Congress contemplated that the patent laws should be given wide scope, and the relevant legislative history also supports a broad construction.

While laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable, respondent's claim is not to a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a non-naturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter - a product of human ingenuity "having a distinctive name, character [and] use.

The unambiguous language of fairly embraces respondent's invention. Arguments against patentability under , based on potential hazards that may be generated by genetic research, should be addressed to the Congress and the Executive, not to the Judiciary. The Court went on to say that the test for determining whether an invention falls within the scope of product of nature is whether the invention in question involves a hand of man.

The Court further said that micro-organism were patentable as manufactures or compositions of matter and that congress dide not intend to keep them out of the scope of patentable subject matter.

In in Germany, a patent was claimed on a method for breeding doves with red plumage, German patent office rejected the patent on the ground that the method was not repeatable and the Supreme Court confirmed the same. It was the first case, which opened the door for patenting biotechnology inventions. Further, in the early s, five years before the United States the German Federal Supreme Court upheld patent protection for new micro-organisms if the inventor were to demonstrate a reproducible way for its generation.

The convention excludes patents for essentially biological processes but it does not exclude patenting of products of non- essentially biological processes. Indeed, they have not been constructed by man, such subject matter truly is a "black box" and therefore virtually impossible to describe.

Complete disclosure of an invention is a fundamental requirement in order to obtain patent protection. In all other technologies, every aspect of the elements of invention are known.

Such deposits are part of the "complete description" of the invention and the deposit is said to "supplement" the complete description. A further feature of invention in biotechnology which distinguishes it from other fields of technology, and which flows from the fact that the subject matter is so complex, relates to the fundamental requirement that all patentable invention must be non-obvious. This assessment is made by a mythical "technician skilled in the art.

This makes identification of the "skilled technician" challenging and leads to the concern that the "technician" may not be properly identified. We invite researchers, practitioners, artists, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to engage with us on topics related internet and society, and improve our collective understanding of this field. To discuss such possibilities, please write to Amber Sinha, Executive Director, at amber[at]cis-india[dot]org or Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Director, at sumandro[at]cis-india[dot]org, with an indication of the form and the content of the collaboration you might be interested in.

The Centre for Internet and Society CIS is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video , internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security.

The research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfiguration of social processes and structures through the internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa. Through its diverse initiatives, CIS explores, intervenes in, and advances contemporary discourse and regulatory practices around internet, technology, and society in India, and elsewhere. Software Patents. The event aims to review the achievements of the program e-governance Iraqi national, and discuss the challenges of applying e-governance as a tool to achieve public sector reform and digital inclusion.

This is what the Centre for Internet and Society submitted. Here are the comments that CIS submitted. Section 8. CIS is happy to note the many improvements in this draft of the Manual from the previous version. CIS made its submission along with a few suggestions that it thinks would make the document even better. By the central government the Act obviously means the relevant Ministry — which basically means the patent controller.

So if the Controller really wanted to demonstrate his expertise he is free to approach the Parliament and get his draft rules ratified. Dear Prashant, You are absolutely right; the judiciary cannot read something into the Act which the legislature never intended in the first place. I blame myself for not explaining the import of my earlier statement properly. The power to make rules under the Patents Act, as you rightly pointed out is given to the controller under s.

The powers of the controller and the establishment of the patent office under chapters 14 and 15 respectively bear witness to this. Of course, one might say that since the appointees and their appointments in the RBI too are not fully free from interference of the executive, the RBI is not fully autonomous.

This is true of most bodies; but the point which i was trying to convey was that atleast theoretically speaking RBI can decide its policies as a monetary market regulator and thus far the practice has been to accord SEBI the same status by virtue of it being the capital market regulator , this is not so with the patent office because it is not a regulator.

I must thank you for patiently responding to my comment and helping me clarify myself. Dear Prashant, i was just wondering about s. You do have a point because the Act could have said but doesnt say that the govt. This means that the former version gives more latitude as opposed to the hypothetical latter, but can such amplitude be extrapolated to say that the power to make rules includes power to formulate substantive rules?

The counter to this could be that s. Also, with regard to the regulatory model which i was referring to earlier, would it be right to say that provisions which speak of compulsory licensing make it easier to import regulatory jurisprudence since such provisions acknowledge the influence of unjustified monopoly of a patent on the competition?

I am just thinking aloud to see how this section can be interpreted, Kindly let me know what you think. I hope i am not stretching the discussion to irrational limits. In India delegated legislation is usually permissible to only procedural areas and not extend to substantive areas of law since policy making cannot be delegated to the patent office.

However the distinction between procedural and substantive can get quite blurry and courts are more than willing to allow specialized statutory authorities to come up with their own interpretations. For e. Coming to Section I would think the relevant provision is S.