IP Case Law › Patents › Novartis AG v. Union of India & Ors.
Relevant Acts and provisions
Patents Act, 1970
Section 2(1)(j)Section 2(1)(ja)Section 3(d)Section 83
Provisions considered: Sections 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja), 3(d) and 83 of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended in 2005).
Brief facts
Novartis sought a patent for the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, marketed as Glivec, a drug used to treat chronic myeloid leukaemia. The Assistant Controller of Patents rejected the application on several grounds including Section 3(d), and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board upheld the rejection of the product patent, holding that the beta crystalline form lacked enhanced efficacy over the known…
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
Efficacy Evergreening Inventive Step Known Substance Pharmaceutical Patent Section 3(d)
Read the judgment
More Patents judgments
Patents
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 ArtPatentsBayer 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 Art