Figuring out sufficient level of human intervention in BTS Research International v. Controller
In BTS Research International v. Controller of Patents, the Calcutta HC decided an appeal against the Controller’s order that refused to grant a patent to a trihybrid cell. The cell was held to be ‘part of an animal/human’ which is unpatentable u/s. 3(j). In my research, this is the first time CHC has decided a case on 3(j), particularly the scope of ‘essentially biological processes.’ The Court also discusses section 3(c) that prohibits patenting of “living substances and non-living substances occurring […]










