The composition with no comparison

Why is a 22 per cent improvement not enough?

The comparison is against the wrong thing

Section 3(e) asks whether the composition produces an effect greater than the aggregation of the properties of its components. The relevant comparison is therefore against each component alone, and against the expected additive effect of the three together.

Comparing against untreated control plots shows that the product works. It does not show synergy, because nobody has demonstrated what the three actives would have achieved separately.

The timing problem

Data generated after the priority date can often still be filed in support, but it is more vulnerable, and it cannot rescue a specification that never asserted synergy in the first place.

Here the field trials had been designed by an agronomy team answering an agronomic question. Nobody asked what the patent objection would look like, so the arms that would have answered it were never run. Repeating a field season costs a year.

What should have happened

• Designed the trial with the section 3(e) comparison built in: each component alone, the combination, and the expected additive value.
• Asserted synergy in the specification as filed, with the data supporting it.
• Asked, before filing, which objections this field always raises and what evidence answers each.
• Kept the raw data and the protocol, so any later filing of results is credible.

This scenario is a composite teaching example written by Ragulika IP. It does not describe any real client, application or matter, and any resemblance to a specific case is coincidental.