Search Indian IP Case Law
Judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and geographical indications — organised by Act and section, each with a link to the judgment on the court’s website.
7 results
for “Obviousness”
Array Biopharma Inc v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
A combination of distinct and independent active drugs, each with its own chemical identity and mechanism, does not fall under the Section 3(d) bar for derivatives of known substances. Using phrases such as 'for simultaneous, sepa…
Inventive StepMethod of TreatmentPharmaceutical CombinationPrior ArtPatentsBishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries
An improvement on a device or process already known must involve more than a routine workshop improvement; it must independently satisfy the tests of novelty and inventive step by producing a new result, a new article, or a better…
Inventive StepNoveltyObviousnessPatent RevocationPatentsF. Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited
A credible challenge to patent validity under Section 64(1)(f), showing that the claimed compound is an obvious and predictable structural modification of a compound already disclosed in the patentee's own earlier prior art, can d…
EvergreeningGenus-Species PatentInterim InjunctionInventive StepPatentsF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. & Anr. v. Cipla Ltd.
A patent claim for a chemical compound is not to be narrowed to a specific polymorphic or crystalline form merely because the specification discusses particular polymorphs, where the claim itself is drafted broadly to cover the co…
Claim ConstructionPatent InfringementPharmaceutical PatentPolymorphPatentsSulzer Mixpac AG v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Adjudication under the Patents Act has to be guided by the statute rather than by a mechanical, step-by-step application of judicial formulas. A patent decision cannot be overturned or deemed invalid solely because it did not stri…
Common Bar ElementInstallation BodyInventive StepObviousnessPatentsSyngenta Participations AG v. Controller of Patents and Designs
Under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, efficacy is not a fixed, uniform standard confined to therapeutic effect; its content depends on the field of the invention. For an agrochemical compound, a new polymorphic form demonst…
EfficacyInventive StepPatent ProsecutionPrior ArtPatentsTapas Chatterjee v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
A rejection for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) must be supported by a structured, reasoned analysis identifying the skilled person, the inventive concept, and the specific differences from the cited prior art and wh…
Inventive StepKnown ProcessObviousnessPatent Prosecution