The Indian Supreme Court has failed to provide the clarity which is craved by practitioners in its latest pronouncement on the controversial Section 3(d), says Jitesh Kumar.
The judgment of the Indian Supreme Court concerning Novartis’ anti-cancer drug Glivec has dominated all recent discussions on Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. Despite being a landmark reference for issues pertaining to Section 3(d), it is often forgotten that there is much more to Section 3(d) beyond the “enhanced efficacy” requirement, which the judgment did not address.
While cogent in many aspects, the ruling has evaluated issues primarily in the context of specific facts and circumstances of the case, leaving us with dicta rather than binding precedence.
The scope of Section 3(d)
To continue reading this article and to access our full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need a subscription.
If you have already subscribed please login.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription we can add you into, please email Atif at email@example.com
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website and archive choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’.
Indian Supreme Court, Glivec, section 3(d)