Synopsis

This judgment by the Delhi High Court disposes of an appeal filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, against an order of the Controller of Patents rejecting a patent application. The Controller had rejected the application primarily on the ground that the claimed invention did not satisfy the requirement of Section 3(d) of the Act (enhancement of known therapeutic efficacy). The appellant had sought to rely on additional data during the appeal to demonstrate the enhanced efficacy of the crystalline form of the compound. The court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction, allowed the additional data to be taken on record under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC and remanded the matter back to the Controller for reconsideration of the Section 3(d) objection in light of the new data. The court noted that the Controller had already found the invention to satisfy the inventive step requirement under Section 2(1)(ja) and that the pandemic had caused the delay in filing the data. The appeal was disposed of with directions for a fresh hearing within four months.

1. Heading for the judgment

Citation: Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 23/2022, decided on 23.03.2026 (Delhi High Court)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela (Single Judge)
Core Law: Patents Act, 1970 (Sections 3(d), 2(1)(ja), 117A); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XLI Rules 27, 28, 29).

Delhi High Court remands patent application to Controller for reconsideration of Section 3(d) objection after permitting additional efficacy data to be filed on record.

2. Legal framework

This judgment deals with appellate powers in patent matters and the procedure for taking additional evidence.

• Patents Act, 1970:
  Section 3(d): Prohibits patenting of

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.