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...
The Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2019 came into effect on September 17, 2019, introducing significant changes to the framework governing expedited examination of patent applications in India. Rule 24(C) has been amended to expand the categories of applicants eligible for expedited examination. Previously limited to a narrow set of circumstances, the Rule now recognizes ten distinct categories under which an applicant may request expedited examination: Where India has been indicated as the International Searching Authority (ISA) or elected as the International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) in the corresponding PCT application; Where the applicant qualifies as a start-up; Where the applicant qualifies as a small entity; Where the applicant(s) is/are natural person(s), and at least one such applicant is a female; Where the applicant is a Government Department; Where the applicant is an institution established by a Central, Provincial, or State Act, and is owned or controlled...