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)
You need a subscription to continue reading this content.
To access the full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need to take out a paid subscription.
News stories up to a week old and feature articles on the day of publication are accessible with a BASIC FREE ACCOUNT.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website, archive, and to receive print publications, choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial with full access, select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’; and for basic access to the latest news on the website and weekly email news alerts choose the 'BASIC FREE ACCOUNT' registration.
Indian Supreme Court, Glivec, section 3(d)