Author: Sharad Vadehra and Neha Gupta

Section 3(d) Strikes Again: Nippon Steel v. Controller General of Patents

Introduction Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act (hereinafter, “the Act”) bars the patentability of new uses or new forms of known compounds and compositions unless these changes result in significant therapeutic efficacy. Various judgments have established precedents clarifying non-patentability objections, particularly those under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act.  In a recent judgment […]
Read more

Clarification on the Patentability Criteriafor Synthesized Non-Living Substances

Introduction Madras High Court’s recent decision in Genmab A/S v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs clarifies the interpretation of Section 3(c) of the Indian Patent Act for synthesized non-living substances, especially monoclonal antibodies. This judgment provides a detailed explanation of why establishing the novelty or the technical advancement of an invention is a must […]
Read more

Claim vs. Example: Insights from Bayer’sPatent Ruling

Introduction The Delhi High Court’s recent decision in Bayer Pharm Aktiengesellschaft v. The Controller General of Patents and Designs [1] reinforced the principle that the legal limits and scope of a patent are defined by its claims and not by the working examples provided in the application. This judgment is significant as it clarifies that […]
Read more

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Reach us at knk@kankrishme.com

X