Dimminaco AG v Controller of Patents and Designs
(2002) IPLR 255 (Cal)20021 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- The Controller rejected a patent application for a process of preparing a live vaccine against infectious bursitis in poultry, on the ground that a product containing a living organism was not a 'manufacture'.
- Issue
- Whether such a process is an invention under the Patents Act 1970.
- Held
- 'Manufacture' is not defined; a new and useful process producing a vendible product is an invention even if the end product contains a living organism. The rejection was set aside and the application remitted for reconsideration.
- Principle
- A process yielding a vendible product with living material can be patentable.
Facts
- The Controller rejected a patent application for a process of preparing a live vaccine against infectious bursitis in poultry, on the ground that a product containing a living organism was not a 'manufacture'.
Issue
- Whether such a process is an invention under the Patents Act 1970.
Held
- 'Manufacture' is not defined; a new and useful process producing a vendible product is an invention even if the end product contains a living organism. The rejection was set aside and the application remitted for reconsideration.
Cite this
Citation
Dimminaco AG v Controller of Patents and Designs (2002) IPLR 255 (Cal)Reported: https://spicyip.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Dimminaco-A.G.-v.-Controller-of-Patents-Designs.pdf (not found on IK or SCI). This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.