Pharmaceutical patents | Intellepedia

Wanted Dead or Alive: Delhi High Court Holds Patent Revocation Survives Expiry and Section 107 Defence

Hand wearing a blue glove holding a small vial beside torn paper with the words “How to Survive,” symbolizing the Patent revocation case as decided by the Delhi High Court between Boehringer Ingelheim v. Controller

In the case of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Controller of Patents & Anr., the Delhi High Court addressed two important questions under the Patents Act: whether a revocation petition survives patent expiry, and whether it can continue after a Section 107 invalidity defence is raised in an infringement suit. The dispute arose from parallel revocation and infringement proceedings relating to Patent IN 243301 covering Linagliptin. The court held that revocation under Section 64 remains maintainable despite patent expiry and is not barred by a Section 107 defence.

Intellepedia’s Top Patent Articles of 2025: A Year in Review

A concise roundup of Intellepedia’s most impactful patent law articles of 2025, highlighting key judicial and Patent Office developments every IP practitioner should note.

Dr Reddy’s Semaglutide Exports to Continue as Court Denies Interim Relief to Novo Nordisk

Semaglutide injection pen with syringe surrounded by weighing scale, tape measure, dumbbell and fast food, symbolising weight loss and diabetes treatment.

The Delhi High Court refused Novo Nordisk interim relief against Dr Reddy’s, finding that the Semaglutide species patent faces serious validity challenges in light of the earlier genus patent. The Court allowed Dr Reddy’s to continue manufacturing Semaglutide in India solely for export to non-patent jurisdictions, with no domestic sales.

Section 3(i) Rejection Set Aside: Court Clarifies Scope of Pharmaceutical Patent Claims

Banner image showing a human brain against a blue molecular/network background, with overlaid text: “Section 3(i) Rejection Set Aside: Court Clarifies Scope of Pharmaceutical Patent Claims”.

The Delhi High Court reiterated that a properly drafted pharmaceutical composition claim cannot be dismissed as a “method of treatment” under Section 3(i), and has sent Medilabo’s neurodegenerative drug application back for a full, merits-based examination.

Akebia’s patent for Anemia therapy gets fresh blood from Court

Illustration featuring the headline “Court infuses fresh blood into Patent for Anemia Therapy” alongside an image of a blood bag with a red tube.

In a recent case the Madras High Court upheld Akebia Therapeutics’ appeal on its anaemia treatment patent, interpreting Section 59 to allow claim amendments from treatment methods to compositions, as long as they’re disclosed in the original application. The case underscores the significance of well-documented specifications in pharmaceutical patents.

AbbVie’s Patent Refusal Upheld over Impermissible Shift from Treatment to Product Claims

3D rendering of a blue virus particle surrounded by yellow antibodies, illustrating an immune response at the microscopic level

The Delhi High Court has dismissed AbbVie’s appeal regarding the refusal of their patent application for an anti-cMet antibody-drug conjugate. The court found the proposed amendments exceeded permissible scope under the Indian Patents Act.

Failure to Disclose Prior Art in Hearing Notice Violates Procedural Fairness, Rules Calcutta High Court

"Dictionary entry highlighting the word 'disclose' with its definition to make information known or public."

Introduction The Calcutta High Court recently overturned the Controller’s decision to reject a patent application in the case of UCB Pharma GmbH & Anr. v....

Revisiting Novartis versus Natco – Cancer drugs, divisional applications and patent validity

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Novartis’s Ceritinib patent against Natco’s challenge, addressing divisional application issues and allegations of suppression. The injunction against Natco remains in force, reinforcing the enforceability of Novartis’s patent rights.

Madras High Court Overturns Patent Refusal under section 3(d), Reiterates Importance of Reasoned Orders and Natural Justice

The Madras High Court set aside a patent refusal under section 3d, citing lack of procedural fairness and insufficient reasoning. The Court directed reconsideration, underscoring the necessity of reasoned orders and respect for principles of natural justice in patent proceedings.

Madras High Court Upholds Patent Validity in Embio Limited vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals

The Madras High Court affirmed the validity of Malladi Drugs’ patent for chiral beta-amino alcohols, highlighting the invention’s novelty and inventive step. The judgment clarifies key principles on patent revocation and the definition of a “person interested” under Indian patent law.