Vrije Universiteit Brussel vs Controller Of Patents And Designs

C.Hari Shankar, J

The present appeal has been preferred against order dated 30 November 2022, whereby the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs has rejected the Application No. 20171702001 filed by the applicant for registration of a patent in respect of “IN VITRO MATURATION OF A MAMMALIAN CUMULUS OOCYTE COMPLEX”.

The application had eighteen claims. Of these, the appellant is pressing Claims 1 to 3, 8 and 9.

Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned CGSC for the respondent, submits, on instructions that the respondent is willing to grant a patent to the appellant in respect of claims 1 to 3 and 8 as filed, and that in respect of Claim 9, the respondent is willing to grant the patent as filed, subject to deletion, by the appellant, of the words “instructions for use of the kit, in Claim 9(e)”

The amended claim would read thus:

“9. A kit for in vitro maturation of an immature mammalian cumulus oocyte complex, the kit comprising:

(a) a collection medium comprising natural or man-made chemical compounds inhibiting naturally occurring phosphodiesterases or natural inhibitors of oocyte meiosis;

(b) a capacitation medium according to any one of claims 1 to 3;

(c) a maturation medium;

(d) non-adherent or adherent culture plates;”

Mr. Anand submits, on instructions, that his client is willing to effect the said deletion in Claim 9.

Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar submits, on instructions, that, in that case, a patent can also be granted in respect of the said claim.

In view thereof, the dispute does not survive for consideration on merits.

The Controller General of Patents is directed to grant a patent to the appellant in respect of Claims 1 to 3, 8 and 9 (as amended).

The impugned order dated 30 November 2022 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs stands set aside to the said extent.

The appeal stands allowed accordingly.