Adrenomed AG v. Deputy Controller, Amendments to the Patents Rules, 2003 – A Summary, Drafting a Patent

The LexCampus Weekly Newsletter No.19
12th May, 2021

This week’s judgement is from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Mumbai Bench which discusses the objections raised under section 3(i) of the Patent Act, 1970 in respect to an antibody fragment used in therapy of certain diseases. The case appreciates the probability of claiming use in the form of combinations or compositions to overcome the objection of non patentability under section 3(i) of the Act. This week’s blogpost gives an exhaustive overview of all the amendments to the Patents Rules, 2003. This week we continue with the topic of drafting, the Body of Claims. We conclude with a patent related query answered by Dr. Feroz Ali.


Adrenomed AG v. The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs

Adrenomed AG appealed before the IPAB against the order passed by the Controller refusing the grant of patent on the ground of non patentable subject matter of certain claims under section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. According to the appellant, the subject matter is a composition rather than a treatment method. The court in this case explored the possibility of claiming use claims in guise of combination or composition of drugs to overcome the objection of section 3(i) of the Act and allowed only those amended claims that direct towards composition dismissing the impugned order of Controller. Read more


Amendments to the Patent Rules, 2003- A Summary

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 159 of the Patents Act, 1970 and in supersession of the Patents Rules, 1972, Central Government notified Patent Rules, 2003 on 02.05.2003. There are numerous important amendments which were introduced in the said Rules, brought into effect as Patents (Amendment) Rules in the year 2005, 2006, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2020 respectively. This blog post gives a quick & exhaustive overview of the said amendments in the Patents Rules, 2003 which indicates its evolution, since the year 2005. This essentially sums up all the amendments to the said rule at one place. Read more


  1. The body of claim should recite the elements of combination such as parts, steps, chemicals etc.
  2. It should describe how the elements cooperate with each other structurally, physically or functionally to form operative combination recited in preamble.


QUESTION: Please send a format for filing late reason for FORM 5, FORM 3, etc. in FORM 4, with charges and duration.

ANSWER: Form 4 in its format includes provision for writing down reasons why an extension is being sought and the same may be used by the applicant. The form is by default addressed to the Controller. The format for Form 4 is available on the website of the IP office here.

That’s all folks for this week.

Team LexCampus

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Want to Learn Patent Law?

The most in-depth online course in Patent Law in India at the most affordable price of just Rs.199 per month.


Firstly it changed the approach of looking at the subject. At the first instance bare act seemed dry. The lecture series actually explained 'why' of the topic and statutes. Which helped in understanding the way the things are .

Nachiket Galgali

To receive updates on Patent Case Laws, Patent Articles, Patent Q&A & more in your inbox, subscribe to our free newsletter.