Practice Pointer Series: Brief on Patenting Diagnostic Methods in India

Patenting of medical methods is prohibited in India according to Section 3 (i) of the Indian Patent Act, which states that “any process for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic [diagnostic therapeutic] or other treatment of human beings or any process for a similar treatment of animals to render them free of disease or to increase their economic value or that of their products.” This flexibility has been conferred by TRIPS in its Article 27(3) which states that “members may also exclude from patentability diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals”.

Among various medical methods as described in Section 3 (i), such as surgical and therapeutic methods, patentability of diagnostic methods in particular has been questionable and is not objectively interpreted.

This article tries to focus on understanding the Indian patent scenario with respect to patenting of diagnostic methods and providing some key points for more efficient protection of the same.

The Indian “Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure” describes that Diagnosis is the identification of the nature of a medical illness, usually by investigating its history and symptoms and by applying tests. Further the Manual explains that determination of general physical state of an individual (for example a fitness test) is not considered to be diagnostic if it is not intended to identify or uncover pathology. Thus, the diagnostic methods excluded from Patentability include methods which determine or identify existence of a disease or disorder. However, if a method does not include the identification of a disease or disorder, then the method would be patentable. Had this been the case, the scope of diagnostic methods excluded from patentability would have been construed very narrowly. However the Indian Patent Act provides a flexibility in a form such that only diagnostic methods practiced on the living body are not patentable and the diagnostic methods performed on tissues or fluids which have been permanently removed from the body are not be excluded, that is the in-vitro methods are patentable.

Thus, the Patent Scenario in Indian is similar to European Patent Law where according to Article 52(4) of the EPC, in-vitro diagnostic methods are found to be patentable. However the exact scope of such exclusion is not clearly defined at the moment due to the lack of the interpretation of the Courts unlike in Europe where the extent of the auspices of patentable subject matter is litigated a large number of times in Courts. Under US Patent Law, all medical methods including Diagnostic Methods are patentable.

Additionally, under the Indian Patent Law, there have been instances when the examiners have rejected the in-vitro diagnostic methods too under the pretext of Section 3 (d) of the Act citing lack of inventive step involving “mere use of a known process”.

For example, if the detection method  per se as well as the biomarker in the sample are already known and the proposed invention only identifies use of the marker in the detection of a disease, there are high chances that the method would not be patentable. Thus, where the method involves a novel biomarker or one or more novel detection method steps, the chances of patentability become high. Indian Granted Patent IN 228031, for example, claims a rapid method for heat mediated ELISA characterized in using an activated solid support for detection of minute quantities of biomolecules such as antigen, antibody etc. The method has a profound technical advancement of reduction in the total time required for ELISA to around 3 h. Another Indian granted Patent IN 223553 claims an in vitro method of determining an expression level of a plurality of genes in the sample consisting of gene No. 1 to 562 in predicting the prognosis of a biological condition in animal tissue. The Indian Patent IN 220274 claims a method for detecting a risk of gastro esophageal reflux disease on assaying the analytes pepsinogen I, fasting gastrin-I7 and a marker for Helicobacter pylori infection. Another Indian Patent claims a method of for detecting antibodies to INGAP 104-118 peptide contacting test sample with the peptide bound to solid support. The Indian Patent IN 233723 claims a new Scintillation Proximity Assay for the detection of peptidoglycan synthesis. Thus we have seen that all these granted patents describe one or more novel procedural steps in the diagnostic methods described therein. However, subject to the lack of the exact scope, the patenting of diagnostic methods in India is still decided more often on a case-by-case basis.

 

Conclusion

The diagnostic methods are patentable in Indian provided they are not practiced on living body and are performed on tissues or fluids which have been permanently removed from the body. Further, for the best protection, either the biomarker or any of the steps involved in the method should be novel, involving “inventive step” and deviating away from the “mere use of the known process” rejection. The scope of the Patentability of Diagnostic methods in India is still not clearly defined due to the lack of the interpretation of the Courts unlike in Europe where the extent of the auspices of patentable subject matter is litigated a large number of times in Courts.

About the Author:  Meenakshi Khurana, Patent Specialist, IIPRD and reachable at Meenakshi@iiprd.com or Meenakshi@khuranaandkhurana.com

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010