ASWAL ASSOCIATES- Intellectual Property Law firm India

  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...

  I. Overview and Procedural Posture The Delhi High Court, in an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, upheld the Controller's rejection (order dated 27.04.2023) of the patent application (No. 201817033732) titled "Organic Compounds" and covering deuterated heterocycle-fused gamma-carboline compounds (Formulas I–IV). The claims fell into two clusters: Claims 1–3 & 5–10 (Formula I–III compounds) and Claims 4 & 5–7 (Formula IV compounds), with Claim 11 as a dependent pharmaceutical composition claim. The claimed invention was for the treatment of diseases involving 5-HT2A receptor, serotonin transporter (SERT) and/or pathways involving dopamine D1/D2 receptor signalling systems and also has application in the treatment of diseases/disorders like anxiety, psychosis, schizophrenia, sleep disorders, sexual disorders, migraine, etc. The rejection rested on lack of novelty (Section 2(1)(j)), obviousness (Section 2(1)(ja)), and non-patentability under Sect...

Summary In re:   Synertec Pty Ltd v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C)-IPD 53/2025, the Delhi High Court has restored Indian Patent Application No. 202217030233, filed by Australian company Synertec Pty Ltd for a system and method of vaporising liquefied natural gas, after the application had gone "deemed to be withdrawn" under Section 11B(4) of the Patents Act, 1970 for non-filing of the Request for Examination (Form 18) within the statutory 48-month window. The Court held that the lapse was caused entirely by the Petitioner's patent agent misstating the deadline, not by any intention on Synertec's part to abandon the invention, and directed the Patent Office to restore the application and permit Form 18 to be filed within two weeks. Background: How the Application Came to Be "Deemed Withdrawn" Under Section 11B read with Rule 24B of the Patents Rules, 2003, an applicant must file a Request for Examination within 48 months of the priority date, faili...