Short Summary
Nestle appealed the refusal of its patent application, titled 'Composition for use in the Prophylaxis of Allergic Disease,' which had been rejected by the Patent Office on grounds including being a method of treatment and lack of inventive step. The High Court examined arguments regarding claim scope, permissible amendments under Section 59, and the demonstration of synergy. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, finding that the subject matter satisfied the criteria for inventive step and directing the application to proceed for grant.
Detailed Summary
of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa vs The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.vsThe Controller Of Patents And Designs & Another
The appellant filed an appeal seeking cancellation of several registered toothbrush designs, arguing they lacked originality, were mere trade variations, or were prior published. The respondent argued that the designs possessed novelty in their shape and configuration, particularly when combined, and that the Controller's original finding was correct. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the registration.
Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A.vsController Of Patents And Designs
Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its Indian Patent Application No. 1435/DELNP/2012. The application, which relates to a co-crystal formulation of Tramadol and Celecoxib, was rejected for lacking novelty and inventive step under Section 3(d) and (e).
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co LtdvsController of Patents and Designs And Anr.
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the department to correct its records and instructed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices.
Novartis AgvsCenturion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 229051 concerning pharmaceutical compositions comprising Valsartan and NEP Inhibitors. The court clarified that the Department's Public Notice was merely to collate local manufacturers and did not constitute Government Authorization under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970. Consequently, the suit was decreed granting a permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies.
Pfizer Products IncvsD Rawal
The contempt petition was filed by Pfizer Products Inc alleging non-compliance with a previous court order. The respondent submitted an affidavit stating that they had applied to the DCGI for permission to manufacture and market the new drug, Tofacitinib, under New Drugs and Clinical Trial Rules, 2019. They undertook not to commercialize the product until the patent expiry date.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.