Anand and Anand represented the appellant in Syngenta Participations AG v Controller of Patents and Designs, securing a crucial Delhi High Court ruling on polymorph patents and clarifying how Section 3(d) must be interpreted for agrochemical inventions.
Anand and Anand represented the appellant in Syngenta Participations AG v Controller of Patents and Designs, obtaining a significant decision from the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on polymorph patents and the proper interpretation of Section 3(d) as it applies to agrochemical inventions.
Anand and Anand acted for the appellant in an appeal preferred under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
The appeal challenged the rejection of an Indian patent application involving a monohydrate crystalline polymorph of an agrochemical compound. The application was refused on two principal grounds: lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3(d).
Among the core questions considered were:
- What test should govern efficacy for non-medicine cases?
- Whether the absence of enhancement of therapeutic efficacy can operate as a bar under Section 3(d) in agrochemical cases?
- Whether increased thermodynamic stability can constitute enhanced efficacy for agrochemicals under Section 3(d)?
- Whether the thermal stability of a polymorph is relevant in assessing efficacy for the purposes of obviousness.
The Court held, inter alia, that,
- The assessment of efficacy for non-medicine cases must be grounded in the product’s function, utility, or purpose.
- Thermodynamic stability of a polymorph amounts to enhancement of efficacy in the context of agrochemicals.
- Non-enhancement of therapeutic efficacy is not a disqualifying factor under Section 3(d) for agrochemical inventions.
- Inventive step must be evaluated using the five-step framework set out in Roche v Cipla.
- The Patent Office must provide reasons when disregarding applicant-supplied data or when relying on prior knowledge.
- Where refusal is premised on existing knowledge, the source of such knowledge must be explicitly identified and disclosed.
The Hon’ble Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.
The Court directed that the question of inventive step be reassessed on merits and in accordance with law, with clear reasoning and proper appraisal of the technical material submitted by the applicant.
The decision offers meaningful guidance on the interpretation of Section 3(d) for agrochemical and polymorph patent disputes.
It clarifies that efficacy in agrochemical inventions must be evaluated in a functional and context-specific manner. It also highlights the duty of the Patent Office to issue reasoned, evidence-backed decisions when assessing inventive step and patentability.
The Anand and Anand team included Pravin Anand (Managing Partner), Arpita Kulshrestha (Partner), and Ashutosh Upadhyaya (Managing Associate).