It appears the provided information is incomplete. The title "Section 59(2)(c) in The Patents Act, 1970" and "Court: Union of India - Subsection" along with the date "19 September 1970" do not represent a specific case. Section 59(2)(c) is a provision within the Patents Act, 1970, dealing with amendments to patent applications. To provide a proper case summary, I need details of an actual court case that interpreted or applied this section.

However, I can provide a hypothetical summary based on the general understanding of Section 59(2)(c) and its potential application in a hypothetical case. This is NOT a real case summary, but an example of how the format would be used if a real case were provided.

Hypothetical Case Summary (Based on Section 59(2)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970)

Short Summary This hypothetical case concerns the rejection of a proposed amendment to a patent application under Section 59(2)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The applicant sought to broaden the scope of the claims after the initial filing. The court upheld the Controller's decision to reject the amendment, finding that it would result in the claims not falling wholly within the scope of the matter disclosed in the specification before the amendment.

Facts An applicant filed a patent application for a novel chemical compound. During prosecution, the applicant sought to amend the claims to encompass a broader class of compounds, including those not explicitly described in the original specification. The Controller of Patents rejected the amendment, citing Section 59(2)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

Issues Did the proposed amendment violate Section 59(2)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970, by broadening the scope of the claims beyond the matter disclosed in the original specification?

Petitioner's Arguments The petitioner argued that the proposed amendment was merely a clarification of the original invention and did not introduce new matter. They contended that the broader class of compounds was implicitly disclosed in the original specification through examples and general descriptions.

Respondent's Arguments The respondent (Controller of Patents) argued that the proposed amendment sought to claim compounds that were not specifically described or enabled in the original specification. Allowing the amendment would effectively grant the applicant a patent for an invention not originally disclosed.

Court's Reasoning The court analyzed the original specification and the proposed amendment. It found that the original specification primarily focused on specific examples and did not provide sufficient enabling disclosure for the broader class of compounds claimed in the amendment. The court emphasized that Section 59(2)(c) prevents applicants from using amendments to effectively claim a new invention not originally disclosed.

Conclusion The court upheld the Controller's decision, dismissing the petition. The proposed amendment was deemed to violate Section 59(2)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970, as it broadened the scope of the claims beyond the matter disclosed in the original specification. No relief was granted.

Important Note: This is a hypothetical example. To provide a real case summary, please provide the details of an actual court case.