Neetha Mohan | Intellepedia

Section 3(i) and Diagnostic Patents: Court Upholds Refusal of Prenatal Testing Method

DNA gel bands with a magnifying glass highlighting DNA bases and the word “Disease

Delhi HC rules Sequenom’s NIPT methods are excluded as “diagnostic” under Section 3(i) and hit by 3(b) for sex selection concerns, while keeping the door open for tools and products.

Roche’s Appeal Dismissed, Path Open for Affordable Risdiplam in India

Illustration of a medicine bottle labeled “Risdiplam” next to the word “unaffordable,” with a hand using scissors to cut off the “un” prefix, symbolizing making the drug affordable.

The Delhi High Court dismissed Roche’s appeal against Natco Pharma, finding the Risdiplam patent prima facie obvious due to its similarity with prior genus patents, paving the way for affordable generic SMA treatment in India.

Strategic Delay Costs Novartis Its Cross-Examination Rights

Banner with text “Tactical Delay Proves Costly for Novartis” beside a clock and wooden blocks spelling DELAY on an orange background

The Delhi High Court dismissed Novartis’s writ petitions, ruling it had waived cross-examination by opting for rebuttal evidence. The Controller’s orders were upheld, with the patent already revoked days earlier.

Amgen’s Lyophilized Peptibody Patent Upheld by Madras High Court

Banner with lab test tubes and a microscope; text reads 'Amgen’s Peptibody Patent Refusal Overturned' following Madras High Court ruling

Madras High Court backs Amgen on lyophilized peptibody formulations, rejecting Section 3(d), 3(e) and inventive step objections. Grant directed, with claims narrowed to supported sequences.

Squibb Secures Interim Injunction Against Zydus in Nivolumab Patent Dispute

Laboratory pipette with DNA and molecular structures representing biotech research

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction restraining Zydus from launching its Nivolumab biosimilar, siding with Squibb’s claim of imminent patent infringement.

Ziegler-Natta Catalyst Patent Rejection Upheld for Lack of Inventive Step

Illustration of a judge at a courtroom bench holding a gavel, smiling and giving a thumbs down, with a speech bubble saying “This is ‘Natta’ Catalyst” – a pun referring to the rejection of a Ziegler-Natta catalyst patent.

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of Lummus Novolen’s patent for a Ziegler-Natta catalyst, citing lack of inventive step and similarity to prior art. Read the key observations and legal reasoning.

Section 3(i) Rejections Reversed: Diagnostic Methods Must Disclose Pathology Per Se

In two recent decisions, the Madras High Court reversed patent application rejections under Section 3(i), clarifying that only diagnostic methods disclosing pathology per se fall within the exclusion. The Court remanded matters for fresh review, ensuring fair consideration and reasoned decisions by the IPO.

Anti-Cancer Patent Refusal Set Aside for Not Identifying ‘Known Substance’

A colourful collage of sticky notes spelling out the word "UNKNOWN" is placed against a green and black background, with a blurred field of black question marks in the backdrop symbolising ambiguity and lack of clarity.

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of an anti-cancer patent filed by Taiho Pharmaceutical. The Court highlighted that objections under Section 3(d) must explicitly state the “known substance” being referenced and directed a fresh hearing for proper assessment.

Patent on Carbon Capture Process freed from IPO refusal

A dark carbon footprint symbol is imprinted on a vibrant green grass background, representing the capture of carbon by nature.

The Madras High Court has overturned the rejection of a patent on a carbon capture process, citing the Patent Office’s failure to adequately justify its decision and its reliance on new, unaddressed grounds. The Court remanded the case for a fresh hearing with a focus on technical and economic evaluations.

Can a Pre-Grant Opposition Survive After Patent Grant?

Text graphic with the phrase “Almost There!” in playful, rounded white font outlined in red, centered on a dark blue background.

The Delhi High Court confirmed that once a patent grant order is signed, a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) is no longer valid. This case involving Vertex Pharmaceuticals affirms that the signature date is definitive, regardless of later administrative delays.