IP Case Law › Patents › Array Biopharma Inc v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Desi…
Relevant Acts and provisions
Patents Act, 1970
Section 10(4)Section 2(1)(ja)Section 3(d)Section 3(i)
Provisions considered: Sections 2(1)(ja), 3(d), 3(i) and 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended).
Brief facts
The Appellant applied for a patent for a pharmaceutical combination consisting of (a) Encorafenib (a B-Raf inhibitor), (b) Cetuximab or Erlotinib (EGFR inhibitors), and optionally (c) Alpelisib (a PI3K-alpha inhibitor). Data from Phase Ib and Phase II clinical trials was provided showing that the combination was significantly better at stopping tumour growth than the drugs used alone.
Free to read once you are signed in
Read the rest of this case note
The findings, the decision and the principle the court settled on are below. Create a free account to keep reading. No payment, and nothing to cancel.
Already have an account? Sign in
We use your details to give you access and to contact you about your enquiry. See our privacy policy.
Keywords
Inventive Step Method of Treatment Pharmaceutical Combination Prior Art Section 3(d) Section 3(i) Synergistic Interaction
Read the judgment
More Patents judgments
Patents
Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
A compulsory licence under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970 may be granted where the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to a patented invention have not been satisfied, the invention is not available at a reason…
Compulsory LicencePublic HealthReasonably Affordable PriceSection 84PatentsBigtec Private Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
An objection that devising nucleotide probes or primers is routine experimentation lacking inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) must engage with evidence of unexpected effects placed on record; and the Section 3(c) exclusion for …
BiotechnologyInventive StepPatent ProsecutionPrior 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 Revocation