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...
A Critical Analysis of Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd. ( S. J. Kathawalla, J., Bombay High Court, Notice of Motion No. 2269 of 2012 in Suit No. 2012 of 2012, decided May 27, 2014) Core question: Can an infringement suit under Section 22 lie against a person who is himself a registered proprietor of a design? And, on the facts, was there infringement and passing off? Core statutory provisions: Sections 2(c), 6, 11, 19 and 22, Designs Act, 2000 I. Introduction The Designs Act, 2000 grants a registered proprietor a time-bound monopoly over the visual features of an article, but it does not say, in so many words, whether that monopoly can be enforced against another person who has himself managed to register a similar or identical design. Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd. is the leading Bombay High Court authority answering this question, and it did so by adopting — and thereby entrenching — the position first taken by the Delhi High ...