We are pleased to share that our team at Kan & Krishme successfully represented Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co. Ltd. before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 52/2024.
By its order dated May 15, 2026, the Hon’ble Court set aside the Patent Office’s refusal of Patent Application No. 202117022431, titled-‘TRIFLUOROMETHYL-SUBSTITUTED SULFONAMIDE AS BCL-2-SELECTIVE INHIBITOR’ and remanded the matter back to the Indian Patents Office for fresh consideration.
The appeal was filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the patent refusal order dated March 14, 2024, wherein the application had been rejected under Section 2(1)(ja) (lack of inventive step) and Section 3(d) (mere discovery of a new form of a known substance).
The Court held that the impugned order was cryptic, non-speaking and unreasoned, having failed to meaningfully consider the applicant’s submissions and undertake the analysis expected of a quasi-judicial authority.
Key Legal Takeaways
⚖️ Reasoned Orders: Patent refusal orders must be speaking and reasoned, reflecting independent application of mind. The Court relied upon Best Agrolife Ltd. v. Deputy Controller of Patents, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Controller of Patents, and Assistant Commissioner v. Shukla & Brothers.
⚖️ Inventive Step (Section 2(1)(ja)): The assessment of inventive step must follow the five-step test laid down in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. & Anr. v. Cipla Ltd., as reaffirmed in Tapas Chatterjee v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs.
⚖️ Consideration of Technical Evidence: Responses to the FER, post-hearing submissions, comparative technical analyses and experimental data must be meaningfully considered. The Court relied upon Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GMBH v. Controller of Patents.
⚖️ Obviousness Analysis: Findings on obviousness must be supported by a reasoned technical analysis explaining why the claimed invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art. Reliance was placed on Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs.
This order reinforces the requirement that objections under Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 must be decided through a reasoned and legally sustainable analysis.
Congratulations to Adv. Kshitij Saxena and Adv. Daksh Oberoi of our Litigation Team on successfully representing the appellant before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.