Cognis IP Management Gmbh was founded in 2005. The Company’s line of business includes providing various business services.
In India, the Pharmaceutical business of Cognis IP Management Gmbh is focused on Emollients and cosmetic compositions based on specific branched hydrocarbons, Cosmetic composition comprising a combination of a sugar fatty acid ester with a plant extract of or for skin whitening.
Cognis IP Management GmBH filed patent application numbered 6179/DELNP/2011 that is titled as AGRICULTURAL COMPOSITIONS. This Patent Application has been granted as Patent Number 318081.
This invention covers Agrochemical compound. This invention suggested agrochemical compositions, comprising (a) biocides, and (b) alkoxylation products of di- and/or oligosaccharide esters.
During patent examination, the patent examiner raised objections under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 claimed that Subject matter of claim 1, describes the Agrochemical compositions, biocides, and alkoxylation products of diand/or oligosaccharide esters. The inhibiting activities of these compositions are due to the presence of insecticides, herbicides or fungicides which are known in prior art D1. Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 explains that the mere discovery of new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance, are not patentable. The new form may be salts and derivatives of the known substance. Compositions claimed in claims 1-2 are further derivatives of the compositions disclosed in document D1. Therefore subject matter of claims 1-10 is not patentable u/s 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
As a response, it is submitted that there is no identification of any specific ‘known’ substance, only a vague and bald statement, where it is stated that “The new form may be salts and derivatives of the known substance.” Also, there is no identification of the known efficacy of the supposed known substance when the Controller states “that the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance, are not patentable.” The Applicant submits that in the absence of a clear identification of the known substance and a known efficacy, neither can the Controller make a clear objection under Section 3(d) of the Act, nor can the Applicant provide a sufficient rebuttal for the same.
Advocate Rahul Dev is a Patent Attorney & International Business Lawyer practicing Technology, Intellectual Property & Corporate Laws. He is reachable at rd (at) patentbusinesslawyer (dot) com & @rdpatentlawyer on Twitter.
Quoted in and contributed to 50+ national & international publications (Bloomberg, FirstPost, SwissInfo, Outlook Money, Yahoo News, Times of India, Economic Times, Business Standard, Quartz, Global Legal Post, International Bar Association, LawAsia, BioSpectrum Asia, Digital News Asia, e27, Leaders Speak, Entrepreneur India, VCCircle, AutoTech).
Regularly invited to speak at international & national platforms (conferences, TV channels, seminars, corporate trainings, government workshops) on technology, patents, business strategy, legal developments, leadership & management.
