Short Summary
Hirotsu Bio Science Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application for a cancer detection method using nematode olfaction. The Appellant argued that the invention was merely a detection method (in vitro) and not a diagnosis, despite descriptive language in the specification. However, the High Court upheld the original order, finding that the claimed method functioned as a diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Act.
Detailed Summary
of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Hirotsu Bio Science Inc vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc.vsThe Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal challenged the refusal, which cited claims that were not part of the final application submission. The High Court found the impugned order to be unreasoned and procedurally flawed.
ITC LimitedvsFortune Holidays Inn And Suites Private Limited & Anr.
ITC Limited filed a suit against Fortune Holidays Inn And Suites Private Limited and others, alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the use of the 'FORTUNE' brand in the hospitality sector. The court acknowledged ITC's extensive rights over the 'FORTUNE' trademarks and noted the potential for consumer confusion caused by the Defendants' unauthorized use. While reserving a full hearing on the merits, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, immediately stopping the Defendants from making new bookings under the disputed mark.
Shogun Organics Ltd.vsUnion Of India
Shogun Organics Ltd. challenged the authority's power to grant registration under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, for manufacturing insecticides (D-trans allethrin and Transfluthrin) using a patented process held by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that CIBRC should not allow 'me too' registrations without consent from the patent holder. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the authority is not obligated to consider patent rights when granting registration under Section 9(3) or 9(4).
Microsoft CorporationvsThe Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 487/DELNP/2006). The rejection was based on vague grounds, including failure to adhere to a non-defined 'method step format' and falling under Section 3(k) as an algorithm-based invention. The High Court found the Controller's reasoning lacking focus and unsustainable.
Star India Pvt LtdvsExtramovies.Click & Ors.
Star India Pvt Ltd filed suit seeking permanent injunction against various rogue websites, ISPs, and government bodies for the unauthorized hosting and streaming of its film 'Tadap'. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over the cinematograph work. Throughout the proceedings, numerous additional infringing URLs were identified and blocking orders were issued by MEITY and DoT. Given that the film's theatrical run had concluded and no defense was raised by the rogue websites, the court confirmed the existing injunction and decreed the suit in favor of Star India.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.