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 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.

A doped order on method of doping, court clarifies

The Madras High Court upheld the Patent Office’s refusal of IIT Madras’s patent application for a method of doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate. The judgment clarifies the application of Section 3d and inventive step requirements in Indian patent law.

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

The Madras High Court has reversed the Patent Office’s rejection of Novozymes’ patent for enzyme granules in animal feed, emphasizing the need for detailed reasoning in refusal orders. The decision clarifies the application of inventive step and Section 3d in Indian patent law.

Cancerous Battle: Novartis and NATCO clash over Eltrombopag

The Delhi High Court Division Bench set aside an injunction against Natco Pharma in the Novartis Eltrombopag patent dispute. The judgment provides key guidance on patent validity challenges and the requirements under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act in pharmaceutical cases.

Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has set aside several patent refusal orders, highlighting the need for proper reasoning and adherence to legal procedures. These judgments clarify essential aspects of patentability assessment and reinforce procedural fairness in Indian patent law.

Reversal of unreasoned and invalid Patent refusals based on Section 3(d), Novelty, and Inventive Step

This post reviews three High Court decisions reversing unreasoned patent refusals in India, focusing on Section 3(d), novelty, and inventive step. The courts stressed the need for considering applicant submissions and proper reasoning in refusal orders.

Examining the Origins of Section 3(d) in India’s Patents Act and Its Connection to EU SPCs

The article analyses Section 3(d) of India’s Patents Act and its controversial role in pharmaceutical patents post-Novartis. It examines its origins, connection to EU SPCs, and the focus on preventing evergreening by emphasising enhanced efficacy.