Section 3(e) | Intellepedia

Mere Admixture or True Innovation? Crystal Crop’s Herbicidal Composition Fails the Synergy Test

A hand writing the word “SYNERGY” above the equation “1 + 1 > 2” in red marker, illustrating the concept that combined elements can produce a greater effect than their individual contributions.

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed a simple patent lesson: mixing known compounds will not do unless the mix delivers something unexpectedly better. In Crystal Crop, the claimed herbicidal composition failed that test.

Shattering one order at a time – Court allows appeal against refusal of glass fiber patent

Close-up view of pink-tinted glass fibers arranged in parallel strands, showing fine linear textures and an iridescent sheen

The Calcutta High Court overturns OCV patent rejection, reinforcing ‘teaching away’ doctrine, inventive step analysis, and Section 3(e) interpretation.

Amgen’s Lyophilized Peptibody Patent Upheld by Madras High Court

Banner with lab test tubes and a microscope; text reads 'Amgen’s Peptibody Patent Refusal Overturned' following Madras High Court ruling

Madras High Court backs Amgen on lyophilized peptibody formulations, rejecting Section 3(d), 3(e) and inventive step objections. Grant directed, with claims narrowed to supported sequences.

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

The Madras High Court has overturned the Controller of Patents’ refusal of a soluble foaming composition patent, highlighting procedural lapses in considering applicant submissions. The matter will now be reconsidered by another patent officer within four months.