Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has refused to revive a patent application for a stem cell–based method linked to the treatment of eye disorders, agreeing with patent authorities that the invention cannot be granted protection on ethical grounds.
Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur upheld the rejection order passed by the patent office, holding that it was properly reasoned and did not suffer from any legal error. The court said patent law clearly bars inventions whose commercial use would go against public order or morality, and the present invention fell within that prohibition.
The application concerned an invention titled “Improved Methods of Producing RPE Cells and Compositions of RPE Cells”. Retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells play a key role in maintaining vision and are used in research and treatment of retinal diseases that can lead to vision loss or blindness.
The applicant argued that the invention did not involve destruction of human embryos. It claimed that pre-existing embryonic stem cell lines were used and that the process avoided ethical concerns. The applicant also pointed out that similar patents had been granted in several other countries. The patent authority, however, rejected the application after finding that the claimed method involved the use of embryonic stem cells in a manner that raised ethical issues. It noted that techniques such as single-blastomere derivation, even if they do not directly kill embryos, may affect implantation and survival rates, and therefore cannot be treated as embryo-saving methods.
Agreeing with this reasoning, the High Court said the rejection order had examined the invention in detail and addressed all objections raised by the applicant. The court also rejected the claim that stem cells were sourced only from biological waste or umbilical cord material, noting that this was not supported by the patent specifications or the amended claims filed earlier.
The bench observed that this argument was raised only at the appeal stage and could not override what was disclosed in the application.
Holding that the invention was barred under patent law due to ethical concerns, the court dismissed the appeal and allowed the rejection of the patent application to stand.