ANAND AND ANAND Secures Landmark Win Before Delhi High Court in Syngenta Participations AG v Controller of Patents and Designs
The premier full-service Indian law firm, Anand and Anand represented the appellant in Syngenta Participations AG v Controller of Patents and Designs, securing an important ruling from the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on polymorph patents and the interpretation of Section 3(d) in agrochemical inventions.
Case Background
Anand and Anand represented the appellant in an appeal filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, challenging the refusal of an Indian patent application relating to a monohydrate crystalline polymorph of an agrochemical compound. The application had been refused on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3(d).
Issues Before the Court
The key issues considered included:
- What is the test of “efficacy” for non-medicine cases?
- Whether non-enhancement of therapeutic efficacy is a bar under Section 3(d) for agrochemical cases?
- Whether enhanced thermodynamic stability qualifies as “enhanced efficacy” under Section 3(d) for agrochemicals?
- Whether thermal stability of polymorph is relevant to determine efficacy for the purpose of obviousness?
Key Findings and Takeaways
The Court held that:
- The test of efficacy for non-medicine cases must be based on function, utility, or purpose of the product.
- Thermodynamic stability of a polymorph qualifies as enhancement of efficacy in the context of agrochemicals.
- Non-enhancement of therapeutic efficacy is not a hindrance under Section 3(d) for agrochemical inventions.
- Inventive step must be assessed using the five-step test laid down in Roche v Cipla.
- The Patent Office must provide reasons when disregarding applicant data or relying on prior knowledge.
- If refusal is based on existing knowledge, the source of such knowledge must be clearly disclosed.
Judgment
The Hon’ble Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration. The Court directed that the inventive step be reassessed on merits and in accordance with law, providing clear reasoning and proper evaluation of technical data submitted by the applicant.
The decision provides significant clarity on the interpretation of Section 3(d) in agrochemical and polymorph patent cases.
Team
The Anand and Anand team comprisedPravin Anand(Managing Partner), Arpita Kulshrestha (Partner), and Ashutosh Upadhyaya (Managing Associate).
Conclusion
This judgment strengthens the jurisprudence on Section 3(d) by clarifying that “efficacy” in agrochemical inventions must be assessed in a functional and context-specific manner. It further reinforces the obligation of the Patent Office to provide reasoned orders supported by evidence while assessing inventive step and patentability.
Click to know more about Anand and Anand
If you have a news or deal publication or would like to collaborate on content, columns, or article publications, connect with the Legal Era News Network Team and email us at [email protected] or call us on +91 8879634922.