- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) 150/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Allowed in part
Headnote
Appeal partly allowed. On obviousness the Court held that the order gave no reason why a person skilled in the art would pick one compound out of more than a hundred in the cited prior art and add a methyl substituent to arrive at the claimed compound, particularly when several other compounds in that document had lower IC50 values, and that without hindsight it did not appear possible. The order had also brushed aside the other claimed technical advancements without reasons. On section 3(d) the Court held that since the parent compound was not a known substance, its polymorphic forms could not be treated as obvious and section 3(d) did not apply, so enhanced efficacy need not be shown; the x-ray diffraction pattern identifies a polymorph rather than being a technical advancement. The composition claim failed section 3(e) because no synergy between the ingredients had been asserted or demonstrated.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice.