- Court
- Calcutta High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Ravi Krishan Kapur
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal of an antiviral compound application set aside and the matter remanded. The order had rested on a selective reading of the specification and failed to deal with comparative tables showing that compounds with cyclic substitutions were active against three viral antigens where acyclic substitutions were not. On section 3(d) the Court held that the order did not identify the known substance, its known efficacy, or the new form said to be derived from it, and noted that the provision speaks of a known compound in the singular. It also recorded that section 3(d) does not bar patent protection for all incremental inventions, as Novartis itself makes clear. On section 8, the appellant having furnished details of foreign prosecution, those materials ought to have been considered though not binding.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.