Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from November, 2011

Critical Analysis: Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. v. Controller of Patents

  Critical Analysis: Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. v. Controller of Patents (2026:DHC:5394) C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 24/2023 | Delhi High Court | Decided: 06.07.2026 I. Doctrinal Analysis: Novelty and the "Coverage vs. Disclosure" Question A. The genus-species anticipation problem The core novelty dispute was a classic Markush-genus-versus-species-selection issue. The appellant argued that arriving at the claimed species from the generic Formula I of D1/D7 required " multiple selections " among independent variables (R1–R6), and that the Controller impermissibly relied on more than one prior art document to construct a single "closest prior art" novelty attack — a submission with real doctrinal pedigree, since novelty (unlike obviousness) is ordinarily tested against a single prior document read as a whole. The Court's response — invoking AstraZeneca AB and Boehringer Ingelheim v. Vee Excel — collapses the " covered vs. disclosed " dist...

Delhi High Court Rejects Attempt to Import Claim Amendment from a Related Suit Without Amending Pleadings: Glaverbel S.A. vs. Dave Rose & Ors.

In a significant ruling on patent litigation procedure, Justice A.K. Pathak of the Delhi High Court, in Glaverbel S.A. vs. Dave Rose & Ors. , rejected an interlocutory application seeking to read into the present suit an amendment to a patent claim that had been allowed in a separate, related suit—without the plaintiff amending the pleadings in the present proceeding. The Court further relied on a certified copy obtained from the Patent Office, which confirmed that the amendment in question had not, in fact, been reflected or recorded in the official patent records. Background The plaintiff, vide Interlocutory Application No. 12535/2011 (filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908), sought to amend Independent Claim 1 of the patent in suit in CS(OS) No. 594/2007, on the basis that an identical amendment had already been allowed in a related but separate suit, CS(OS) No. 593/2007. The claim as originally granted under Patent No. 190380 read as follows: "A M...