Due to objections raised by Patent Office, Nippon A&L Inc. chose to amend claims to ‘process’ alone. It is common understanding, ‘product‘ claims are much broader than ‘process‘ claims. In present case, amendment of claims from ‘product by process’ to ‘process’ alone is clearly a step down.
Section 59(1) of The Patents Act, 1970 as it exists came into effect vide Patent (Amendment) Act, 2002 with effect from 20/05/2003. The power to amend has not been abridged or curtailed or narrowed but has been expanded.
Nippon A&L Inc. has sought to rely upon Konica/Sensitizing,  EPOR 142. Konica categorically holds, conversion and change in category of ‘product by process’ claims to ‘process’ claims is admissible.
A perusal of ‘Report on the Revision of the Patents Law (1959) by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar’ shows, purport and intention of this Report was to give broader and wider permissibility for amendment of claims and specification prior to grant and restrict same post-grant and advertisement thereof.
AGC Flats Glass Europe SA v. Anand Mahajan, 2009 (41) PTC 207 (DEL) clarified, it must be kept in mind, amended claims are not to be inconsistent with earlier claims in original specification. This position of law has been reiterated in Sulphur Mills Limited v. Dharamaj Crop Guard Limited, (2021) 87 PTC 567 (DEL).
Nippon A&L Inc. is amending and narrowing scope of claims and not expanding same. The objection under Section 59(1) is not sustainable.
–Hon’ble Justice Pratibha M. Singh of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Nippon A&L Inc v. Controller of Patents, [C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 11/2022] decided on 05.07.2022.