India’s Section 3(d) strikes again

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

India’s Section 3(d) strikes again

The India patent controller has rejected Gilead’s sofosbuvir patent application, citing the controversial Section 3(d) of the Patents Act

In an order that came down earlier this week, the patent controller found that the molecule was not patentable, as it was a merely new form of a known substance that did not have enhanced therapeutic efficacy and thus in violation of Section 3(d).

Sofosbuvir, which is marketed under the name Sovaldi, is used to treat Hepatitis C. Generic manufacturer Natco as well as the Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge and the Delhi Network for Positive People, brought oppositions against the application.

Section 3(d) was at the centre of the controversial 2013 decision by the India Supreme Court to reject Novartis’s patent application for its Glivec anti-cancer drug.

In August, seven Indian generic manufacturers, not including Natco, entered into an agreement to manufacture and export sofosbuvir. The drug reportedly costs $1,000 a tablet in the US, or $84,000 for the minimum 12 week treatment. Furthermore, even before the agreement, Gilead had entered in agreements with several countries, such as Egypt, to sell 12-week supplies for $900.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred
Sponsored by Licks Attorneys
Eduardo Hallak, Rafaella Oliveira, and Laís Souza of Licks Attorneys explain how the provision operates in practice, highlighting evidential hurdles and best practices for patent applicants
Sponsored by Liu, Shen & Associates
Chunyu Cui and Ziqing Wu of Liu, Shen & Associates say recent trends in China’s intellectual property courts indicate alignment with international standards and send a clear signal to the global market
Gift this article