28 articles
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…
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…
The Delhi High Court remanded a Patent Office order in a patent grant case for being legally infirm and unreasoned. The judgment underscores the importance of detailed reasoning…
The 2014 Special 301 Report reviews India's patent system, focusing on Section 3d, compulsory licensing, and enforcement issues. This analysis sets the groundwork for deeper exploration of key…
The revised draft guidelines for examining pharmaceutical patent applications in India aim to standardize practices and clarify legal provisions, particularly section 3(d). These guidelines reflect stakeholder input and…
This post explores evergreening in pharmaceutical patents and how Section 3d of the Indian Patent Act limits patentability for incremental inventions. It discusses the implications for innovation, generic…
The Supreme Court’s Novartis judgment clarified Section 3d and its application to pharmaceutical patents in India. It emphasised the need for enhanced therapeutic efficacy and outlined critical standards…
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…
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…
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…