India’s Section 3(d) strikes again

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

The firm explains how it secured a $170.6 million verdict against the government in a patent dispute surrounding airport technology, and why the case led to interest from other inventors
Developments of note included the court partially allowing a claim concerning confidentiality clubs and a decision involving technology used in football matches
The firm said adding capability in the French capital completes its coverage of all major patent litigation jurisdictions as it strives for UPC excellence
Marc Fenster explains how keeping the jury focused on the most relevant facts helped secure a $279m win for his client against Samsung
Clients are divided on what externally funded IP firms bring to the table, so those firms must prove why the benefits outweigh the downsides
Rahul Bhartiya, AI coordinator at the EUIPO, discusses the office’s strategy, collaboration with other IP offices, and getting rid of routine tasks
A boom in transactional work and a heightened awareness of IP have helped boost revenue for the rebranded commercial services team
Clemens Heusch, head of global litigation and dispute resolution at Nokia, tells us why open conversations – and respectful challenges – lead to the best results
Siegmund Gutman, who joined Mintz one year ago, explains the firm’s approach to life sciences litigation and what it means for hiring plans
The merger of two IP boutiques could prompt others to follow suit and challenge Australia’s externally funded firms
Gift this article