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...
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the Indian arm of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., has challenged the constitutionality of India's customs regulations governing the import of goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights, by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. Samsung India was aggrieved by the action of the Indian Customs Department in withholding clearance of its imported dual-SIM-card mobile phones, pursuant to an application filed by a patentee claiming rights over similar technology with the customs office. Specifically, Samsung India challenged Customs Notification No. 47/2007-Customs (N.T.), dated May 8, 2007—titled the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 —read together with Customs Circular No. 41/2007, dated October 29, 2007, titled Instructions for Implementation of the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 , issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Under these pro...