Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 AUGUST 2025

Section 3(i) Not Designed To Exclude Method Of Supplementing An Animal Feed

Lex Orbis
Explore more from Lex Orbis

Another pharmaceutical patent refusal came under the Indian judicial scanner, when in Kemin Industries, Inc. vs The Controller of Patents [ CMA(PT). No.46 of 2024], the Controller refused to grant the patent [Application no.201617013577] for an invention titled "Use Of Ferulic Acid Esterase To Improve Performance In Monogastric Animals".

IndiaIntellectual Property
DPS Parmar
DPS Parmar
Author LinkedIn connections

Another pharmaceutical patent refusal came under the Indian judicial scanner, when in Kemin Industries, Inc. vs The Controller of Patents [ CMA(PT). No.46 of 2024], the Controller refused to grant the patent [Application no.201617013577] for an invention titled "Use Of Ferulic Acid Esterase To Improve Performance In Monogastric Animals". On appeal, the Madras High Court overturned the Controller's decision of rejecting the patent application on finding that the refusal order issued under Sections 3(d), 3(i), and 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, was unsustainable.

The principal method claims, which was refused by the Controller, read as:

"A method of reducing by 20% to 80% of the main chain degrading enzymes necessary to extract a given amount of the apparent metabolizable energy from a diet comprising feed formulated for a monogastric animal, comprising the step of adding 20 units per kg to 200 units per kg of a ferulic acid esterase produced from bacteria to

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law