Short Summary
Torrent Pharma Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 1, 2021, passed by the Assistant Controller. The said order rejected the patent application for 'Use of a Thiazolo Pyrimidinone' on grounds of lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Sections 3(e) and 3(d) of the Patents Act.
Detailed Summary
In the fiercely competitive world of pharmaceuticals, a single patent can be the difference between market dominance and obscurity. But what happens when a company believes it has discovered a novel application for an existing compound, only to have the patent office slam the door shut? The ongoing dispute between Torrent Pharma Limited and the Controller General of Patents offers a stark reminder that in India's patent landscape, even innovation must clear a high bar — and the journey through that gauntlet is rarely straightforward.
Torrent Pharma Limited, a well-known name in the Indian pharmaceutical industry, sought to secure patent protection for what it described as a 'Use of a Thiazolo Pyrimidinone.' Thiazolo Pyrimidinones are a class of compounds that have attracted significant interest in pharmaceutical research due to their potential therapeutic applications. The company filed a patent application claiming a specific new use for this compound, hoping to carve out exclusive rights in a potentially lucrative market segment. However, on February 1, 2021, the Assistant Controller of Patents delivered a blow to Torrent Pharma's ambitions, issuing an order that rejected the patent application. The rejection rested on two critical grounds: first, that the application lacked an inventive step, meaning the claimed use was not sufficiently non-obvious to a person skilled in the art; and second, that the invention was non-patentable under Sections 3(e) and 3(d) of the Patents Act — provisions that serve as gatekeepers against certain categories of innovations in India.
At the heart of this dispute lies a fundamental legal friction. The patent office, through the Assistant Controller's order, argued that Torrent Pharma's claimed use of Thiazolo Pyrimidinone failed to meet the threshold of inventiveness required under Indian law. Section 3(d) of the Patents Act is particularly notorious in the pharmaceutical world — it explicitly excludes from patentability the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance that does not result in an enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance. Section 3(e), meanwhile, deals with substances obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of the properties of the components thereof. Together, these provisions create a formidable obstacle for companies seeking to patent new uses of existing compounds. Torrent Pharma, dissatisfied with this rejection, escalated the matter by filing an appeal before the higher authority, challenging the Assistant Controller's findings and arguing that its claimed invention represented genuine innovation deserving of patent protection. The company contended that the new use it identified was not a trivial or obvious application but a meaningful therapeutic advancement that warranted legal recognition and protection.
As of the most recent proceedings dated April 12, 2022, the case remains pending. The appellate authority has yet to render a final decision on whether Torrent Pharma's patent application for the use of Thiazolo Pyrimidinone satisfies the requirements of Indian patent law. The outcome hangs in the balance, with significant implications for how new-use claims for known compounds will be evaluated in the future. Until the court delivers its judgment, the pharmaceutical industry watches closely, aware that the ruling could shape the contours of patentability for years to come.
For founders and IP professionals in the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors, this case underscores a critical lesson: patenting a new use of an existing compound in India is an uphill battle. Sections 3(e) and 3(d) of the Patents Act are designed to prevent evergreening and the monopolization of known substances through minor modifications. If your innovation centers on a new application of a known compound, you
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Torrent Pharma Limited vs Controller General Of Patents is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Novartis AGvsSun Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis AG filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier order and allow its patent application (No. IN/PCT/2001/00016/CHE) to proceed to grant. However, the appellant failed to note that Patent No. 223313 had already expired on May 16, 2023. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous.
Xx And OrsvsYy
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant (Exemed Pharmaceuticals) from infringing the Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The court granted an interim injunction and passed various procedural orders related to the case.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr.vsZydus Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking permanent injunctions and recall orders against the defendant regarding the sale of 'Sigrima', a biosimilar of Pertuzumab, infringing patents IN 268632 and IN 464646. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable loss.
KYMAB LIMITEDvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The appeal challenged the rejection of Patent Application No. 10716/CHENP/2012, which covered a process for generating antibodies in non-human mammals. The rejection was based on patent ineligibility under Section 3(i) because it was deemed a method of treatment of animals. The High Court held that the claimed invention was not aimed at treating the mice to render them disease-free or increase their economic value, and since antibodies are not intrinsic products like meat or milk, the rejection was unsustainable.
Interdigital Technology CorporationvsGuangdong Oppo Mobile
The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
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.