Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from February, 2026

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Delhi High Court Clarifies Patent Revocation Rights: Expired Patents Can Be Revoked, Section 107 Defence Does Not Bar Revocation Petition

  Summary The Delhi High Court Division Bench held that patent revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act remain maintainable even after patent expiry, and that filing a Section 107 invalidity defence in an infringement suit does not preclude a separate revocation petition. The Court emphasized that revocation operates retrospectively and in rem (affecting all parties), while Section 107 defence operates only in personam (between specific parties), making them fundamentally distinct remedies serving different purposes. Factual Background In February 2022,  Macleods Pharmaceuticals  filed a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking to invalidate  Boehringer Ingelheim's Indian Patent IN'243301  covering the pharmaceutical compound  Linagliptin  (a diabetes medication). Two days after the revocation petition was filed, Boehringer Ingelheim initiated infringement proceedings against Macleods before the Himachal Pra...
Post a Comment
Read more

Madras High Court Holds Pandemic-Related Filing Difficulties Cannot Result in Deemed Abandonment: Substantive Rights Prevail Over Procedural Formalities

  Summary The Madras High Court set aside the Trademark Registrar's order deeming a trademark application abandoned due to alleged late filing of evidence affidavit. The Court held that an affidavit filed within the prescribed timeline but lacking signature and attestation due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions should be treated as validly filed, with subsequent formal rectification not constituting a fresh filing. Emphasizing that procedural provisions cannot be interpreted rigidly to defeat substantive rights, the Court directed the opposition proceedings to be heard on merits. Background and Procedural History ACE Foods (Appellant) filed trademark application No. 4015733 in Class 35 on December 3, 2018, seeking registration for the mark  "Modern Kitchens' Delite in Every Bite" , claiming use since 1984. On December 12, 2019, Modern Snacks (Respondent No. 2) filed Opposition No. 1019941 challenging the application. Following standard opposition procedure, Modern Snac...
Post a Comment
Read more