Asthristis Relied v. Controller, Amendments to the Patents Act, 1970 – Abolishing IPAB, Drafting a Patent

The LexCampus Weekly Newsletter No.18
5th May, 2021


This week’s judgement is from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Kolkata Bench which discusses the objections raised under sections 3(j), 3(e) and 2(1) (ja) of the Patent Act, 1970 in respect to a topical formulation of compound prepared by utilizing extracts from plants. The case also appreciates the synergy determination in such combinations. This week’s blogpost is in respect to the amendments introduced in the Patents Act, 1970 which categorically abolished the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). This week we start a new topic of drafting, the Body of Claims. We conclude with a patent related query answered by Dr. Feroz Ali.


Asthristis Relied Plus Ltd. v. Controller of Patents and Designs
2021 SCC OnLine IPAB 99

Asthristis Relied Plus Ltd appealed before the IPAB against the order dated 11.12.2015, passed by the Controller refusing the grant of patent on the grounds that the invention is a mere admixture resulting in an aggregation of known properties of prior art compounds having known components lacking synergism under section 3(j), section 3(e) and section 2(1) (ja) respectively. The court accepted the contention of appellant that the invention is a formulation of compounds prepared by utilising extracts from plants rather than the plant itself showing synergy in terms of joint stiffness in patients with osteoarthritis and dismissed the impugned order of Controller. Read more


Amendments to the Patents Act, 1970 – Abolishing IPAB

The Central Government by way of an ordinance, namely the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) ordinance, 2021, brought in amendments to the Patents Act, 1970, the Trademarks Act, 1999 and certain other Acts. The amendments categorically abolished the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which is the statutory adjudicatory authority. This blog explains these amendments in the patent statute in terms of changes in appellate jurisdiction, revocation and rectification of patents which was hitherto vested in the IPAB. Read more


  1. It is written in an explanatory single sentence limited to the description of technical subject matter disclosed.
  2. Redundant, surplus or laudatory statements are not recommended in the body of claim.


QUESTION: Please guide me on the usage of FORM 4. Can we make a statement and reason to the controller for late filing of FORM 5, FORM 3, etc. in Form 4?
ANSWER: The contents to Form 4 are explanatory as to the sections under which extension of time may be requested for, vide Form 4. Accordingly, delay in filing Form 5 can be explained under Form 4, since Rule 13(6) is explicitly written in the header section of Form 4. It is suggested that reading through the rules mentioned on Form 4, would clarify doubts regarding the usage of this provision.
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.