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...
Novartis AG v. Union of India: The Battle Over Beta Crystalline Imatinib Mesylate Overview In a landmark departure from ordinary appellate procedure, the Supreme Court of India admitted and directly heard an appeal filed by Novartis AG against the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) — even though appeals from IPAB orders are ordinarily required to go first to the jurisdictional High Court. The IPAB had rejected Novartis's product patent claim over the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, holding that it failed both the threshold test of "invention" under Sections 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, and the separate test of patentability under Section 3(d). The Supreme Court dismissed Novartis's appeal and allowed the counter-appeals filed by two of the respondents, Natco Pharma Ltd. and the Cancer Patients Aid Association. Because the Court did not render a separate finding on these counter-appeals, it may reasonably be infer...