Patent Application Refused On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Disclosure

In a recent patent pre-grant opposition matter wherein Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys (K&K) represented the Opponent, the patent application was refused mainly on grounds of Insufficiency of Disclosure as per Section 25(1)(g) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”). This case re-confirms the role of sufficiency of disclosure or enablement during patentability assessment of a patent application, and that the Learned Controllers may reject patent applications on this ground alone in case the requisite standards are not met.

Sufficiency of disclosure is a basic requirement of a patent system which works on a ‘quid-pro-quo’ basis, i.e., to reward a technical innovator by granting her exclusive rights for a limited time period in exchange for complete public disclosureabout the invention. The Patents Act, under Section 10(4) casts a duty on the applicant to disclose the best mode/ method of practicing the invention known to the Applicant. Furthermore, Insufficiency of disclosure is a ground on which a patent application can be opposed under section 25(1) and 25(2) of Patents Act, as well as forms grounds of revocation of a patent under section 64(1)(h) and 64(1)(i). Nowadays, it is well-established that sufficiency of the disclosure refers to adequacy of pertinent information to be provided in the complete specification to enable an average skilled person in the art to perform the invention[i].

Insufficiency of the description has two branches[ii].

1. The complete specification must describe an embodiment of the invention claimed in each of the claims and that the description must be sufficient to enable those in the industry concerned to carry it into effect “without their making further inventions” and

2. That the description must be fair i.e. it must not be unnecessarily difficult to follow.

In the instant case, the opponent represented by Khurana and Khurana, Advocates, among other things, contended, that the invention is not adequately described in the application. The Learned Controlled, viewed the application from the point of a person ordinarily skilled in the art, and whether on a reading of the description etc. would that person be able to understand the invention to work on his/her own. The Learned Controller found that certain questions on how the invention works remains answered and therefore, the invention is not sufficiently described, thus sufficiently forming the grounds to refuse the patent application for insufficient disclosure.

It is therefore advised that appropriate caution be taken while drafting patent applications so as to meet the criteria for enablement. Not only should all features and units be described, but special care ought to be taken to describe how they perform their respective functions and interact with each other leading to the overall inventive concept. This should be duly supported by examples and diagrams.

Author: Arindam Purkayastha, Patent Attorney at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at arindam@iiprd.com

References:

[i]Biogen Inc.Vs. MedevaPLC (1997)RPC 1 at Para 53

[ii]Halsbury‘s Law 3rd Edition, Vol.29.page 66, para 138

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