Section 3(d) | Intellepedia

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.

When Delay Becomes Denial: Calcutta High Court Overturns Patent Rejection

The recent judgement of the Calcutta High Court in BASF SE v. Joint Controller of Patents warrants attention for multiple reasons, particularly as it addresses...

Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates

The Madras High Court overturned a patent refusal in Signal Pharmaceuticals vs. Deputy Controller of Patents, citing a lack of reasoning in the rejection order. The Court observed that the Patent Office failed to address the applicant’s arguments, disregarded amended claims, and provided no justification for the refusal under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded for reconsideration, reinforcing the necessity of well-reasoned patent orders.

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

The Madras High Court overturned the Controller’s refusal of Intervet International’s patent application, underscoring the importance of natural justice and reasoned orders in patent proceedings. The case involved complex issues under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, with the Court remanding the matter for reconsideration.

A doped order on method of doping, court clarifies

The Madras High Court confirmed the Patent Office’s rejection of IIT Madras’s patent for a method of doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate. The Court agreed with the rejection based on Sections 3(d) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, but noted procedural shortcomings in the handling of the case.

Victory for Novozymes: Madras High Court Overrules Patent Office’s Refusal

The Madras High Court, in a decision dated March 19, 2024, set aside a patent refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in the case of a patent application filed by Novozymes A/S. This post summarizes the decision of the court in this case.

Cancerous Battle: Novartis and NATCO clash over Eltrombopag

In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court overturned an injunction against Natco, allowing them to produce a generic version of Novartis’s cancer drug. The Court held that Novartis’s patent on a specific salt form of the drug (ELT-O) lacked novelty due to its coverage in an earlier patent (IN’176).

Abbott’s HIV Drug Patent “Not an Invention”

The Indian Patent Office has rejected Abbott’s application for an HIV drug patent, finding no inventive step in the claimed composition. This decision highlights the robust scrutiny applied to pharmaceutical patents in India and the importance of pre grant opposition in safeguarding public health interests.

Once an Intermediate, Always an Intermediate

This post examines the exclusion of patentability for new uses of known intermediates under Section 3d of the Indian Patents Act. It discusses the statutory language, its implications for pharmaceutical innovation, and whether this aligns with the broader objectives of the patent system in India.

Patentability of New Form, Use or Property – Section 3(d)

Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act limits patentability for new forms or uses of known substances unless enhanced efficacy is proven. The Novartis case illustrates how courts interpret this provision, focusing on therapeutic efficacy rather than mere improved properties.