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...
Summary The Supreme Court of India developed a comprehensive two-pronged test to resolve complexities arising from Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, providing clarity on whether a work qualifies for protection under the Designs Act and establishing standards for distinguishing artistic works from industrial designs. Introduction This appeal concerns a dispute regarding alleged infringement of intellectual property rights relating to the design and manufacture of internal components of Cryogenic Storage Tanks and Distribution Systems mounted on Trailers and Semi-Trailers used for efficient transportation of industrial gases, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and similar substances. On September 24, 2018, Respondent No. 1, Inox India Limited (Inox), filed Trademark Suit No. 3/2019 before the Commercial Court against the Appellants, Cryogas Equipment Private Limited (Cryogas) and LNG Express India Private Limited (LNG Express). Inox alleged that the Appellants infringed two categories ...