- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) No.45 of 2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Abdul Quddhose
- Outcome
- Dismissed
Headnote
Appeal dismissed and a refusal under section 3(d) upheld. The Controller had compared the examples of the claimed process with four cited prior art documents and found the reactants and the resulting product to be the same known substance, so that purifying the starting material did not take the claim outside the provision. Reviewing Novartis, the Court restated that enhancement of known efficacy is an essential condition, that the explanation deems salts, esters, polymorphs, complexes and other derivatives of a known substance to be the same substance unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy, and that a change in molecular formula alone does not satisfy novelty. Since the impugned order gave justifiable reasons supported by scientific reasoning and the appellant produced no contrary evidence, the Court declined to interfere.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.