Summary
- The Delhi High Court in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents emphasized that patent objections must be substantiated with specific claims and evidence, not merely asserted.
- The Court overturned the Controller's rejection of a patent for a cancer drug combination on grounds of inventive step, Section 3(d), and Section 3(i), highlighting flaws in the Controller's reasoning.
- The judgment raises critical questions about the consistency of legal standards for assessing obviousness in pharmaceutical patents, as it diverges from established five-step tests used by other benches.
- This ruling could reshape how patent applications are evaluated under Section 3(d) and may impact future claims involving drug combinations, leaving the door open for further legal scrutiny.
Join the discussion — sign up to comment, upvote, and save articles.