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)
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR) tracks the increasing challenges for intellectual property specialists in the rapidly evolving world of life sciences. From gene patents to stem cell research, we provide the very best news and analysis.
To continue reading this article and to access 4,500+ articles, our digital magazines and special reports published for LSIPR subscribers only then you will need a subscription.
If you are already subscribed please login.
Official LSIPR subscribers include:
Allen & Overy
Arnold & Siedsma
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP (BSKB)
Carpmaels & Ransford
European Patent Office
George Washington Law School
Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
Marks & Clerk
NiKang Therapeutics Inc.
Powell Gilbert LLP
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
World Intellectual Property Office
Indian Supreme Court, Glivec, section 3(d)