Student at Christ Academy, Institute of Law, India
The patent Act 1970 does not explain what inventions are; rather, it outlines what are not inventions. Section 3 of the Act provides for various situations where the invention cannot be patentable. It provides for about 15 kinds of inventions that cannot be patentable. One such is ‘mere discovery of a new form of known substance envisaged under clause (d) of section 3. It says that mere discovery of a new form of a known substance that does not result in enhancement of known efficacy of that substance cannot be patentable. However, there was no clarity to the term’s ‘efficacy’, ‘enhancement’ and ‘known-substance. Novartis AG v. Union of India is a landmark case of Supreme Court concerning section 3(d) of Patents Act, 1970. It is a case where the beta-crystalline form of the known substance ‘Imatinib Mesylate’ was in question as to whether it constitutes a new invention and can be patentable. It played a significant role in analysing section 3(d) and discussed the meaning of the term’s ‘efficacy’ and what constitutes ‘enhancement of efficacy’ of a known substance. Through the analysis of this case, we can under the rationale taken by the supreme court behind rejecting the patent.
International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation, Volume 4, Issue 1, Page 575 - 579DOI: https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLSI.111334
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright © IJLSI 2021