Section 3(d) | Intellepedia

Pfizer files for Patent on Known Substance

This post examines Pfizer’s patent application on a known substance and the Indian Patent Office’s refusal in light of Section 3d and the Novartis decision. It discusses whether unpublished patent applications can render a substance as “known” and critiques the merging of novelty and subject matter analysis.

Pfizer falls prey to Section 3(d)

This post analyses the Indian Patent Office’s rejection of Pfizer’s Tofacitinib patent under Section 3(d). The decision addresses issues of novelty, inventive step, and the requirement for evidence of enhanced efficacy in pharmaceutical patent applications.

Roche loses again

The Indian Patent Office has revoked Roche’s Valganciclovir patent, emphasizing Section 3d and public interest. This decision strengthens access to medicines in India and curbs evergreening by pharmaceutical companies.

‘Killead’s Patent Application Killed by the Indian Patent Office!

Gilead’s patent for Sofosbuvir was rejected by the Indian Patent Office on grounds of insufficient therapeutic efficacy. This landmark decision enables wider access to affordable generic Hepatitis C treatments in India.

Special 301 Report: Chapter V. Inventive Step & 3(d) – Comprehending Apprehension or Apprehending Comprehension?

This post critically examines whether Section 3d serves as an extension of the inventive step analysis or as a separate requirement under Indian patent law. It discusses the legal and judicial perspectives on TRIPs compliance and the nuanced challenges in pharmaceutical patentability.

The 3D Effect of Novartis Case on Genetic Inventions

The Novartis case established a strict test for therapeutic efficacy under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, influencing the patentability of genetic inventions. This post examines the impact on gene sequence patents and the ongoing legal debate regarding their compliance with Indian patent law.