TMPatentRemanded 23 July 2026
Array Biopharma Inc v. Deputy Controller of Patents And Designs
2026:DHC:5856
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Bench
- Tushar Rao Gedela
- Outcome
- Remanded
- Date of judgment
- 23/7/2026
Statutory provisions
Section 117A, Patents Act 1970 — Appeals to the High CourtSection 15, Patents Act 1970 — Power of Controller to refuse or require amendment of applicationsSection 2(1)(ja), Patents Act 1970 — Definition of 'inventive step'Section 3(d), Patents Act 1970 — What are not inventions (new forms of known substances)Section 3(i), Patents Act 1970 — What are not inventions (methods of treatment)Section 10(4), Patents Act 1970 — Contents of specifications
Key issue
Whether a pharmaceutical combination patent application was incorrectly rejected for lacking inventive step and being non-patentable under Sections 3(d) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Summary
This case involves an appeal against the rejection of a patent application for a pharmaceutical combination designed to treat proliferative diseases. The Controller of Patents had denied the patent, citing a lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(i) of the Patents Act. The appellant argued that the combination demonstrated unexpected therapeutic benefits and was a patentable product, not a method of treatment. The court found that the Controller's reasoning regarding inventive step and non-patentability was flawed. Consequently, the court decided to send the application back for a fresh review.
Result: Patent application for a pharmaceutical combination remanded to the Controller for a fresh decision after erroneous rejection.
Tags
#pharmaceutical patent#inventive step#Section 3(d)#Section 3(i)#combination therapy#enhanced efficacy#prior art#method of treatment
Judgment PDFOpen in new tab