High Court of Delhi provides guidance on data submission in patent applications
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

High Court of Delhi provides guidance on data submission in patent applications

Sponsored by

Parmaceuticals production with data analysing graphic

Ranjan Narula and Suvarna Pandey of RNA Technology and IP Attorneys discuss a case that centred around the submission of data in support of an enhanced therapeutic efficacy claim for a compound

On November 22 2023, a decision by the High Court of Delhi clarified the recommended practice concerning the submission of data to support patent applications at the Indian Patent Office, with reference to Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Patents Act).

The issue arose in the context of patent application No. 9739/DELNP/2011, filed by Ischemix LLC, titled 'Compositions and Methods for Treating Ischemia and Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury'. The application was refused by the Indian Patent Office under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. Ischemix LLC filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi under Section 117A of the Patents Act, challenging the order of the controller refusing the patent application.

The arguments presented to the High Court of Delhi

In its appeal to the High Court of Delhi against the refusal order, the applicant argued that the data on the therapeutic efficacy of the claimed compound that was submitted had not been referred and that there was no discussion in respect of the same in the impugned order. The therapeutic efficacy of the claimed isomer was demonstrated by:

  • Submitting data relating to in vitro and in vivo studies, and clinical trials; and

  • The filing of reports by two experts to support the plea for enhanced therapeutic efficacy.

The counsel on behalf of the Indian Patent Office submitted the following:

  • A statement that “the Appellant may have given some data in support of the claim for enhanced efficacy, but failed to show how the same constituted therapeutic efficacy”.

  • In an email note filed by the appellant, “a clear and definitive explanation has been given on how the Appellant wishes to substantiate its claim of enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The same was not presented during the course of patent prosecution. Thus, the Patent Office is willing to reconsider and re-examine the subject patent application.”

The court’s findings

The court, after hearing both parties, observed that the settled position with the Supreme Court ruling in Novartis on Section 3(d) is “that whenever any patent Applicant wishes to place on record and demonstrate therapeutic efficacy… the same has to be done precisely. The Applicant must ensure that comparative tables, and a clear explanation as to the way the new form of the known substance has significant enhancement in therapeutic efficacy is placed before the Patent Office during prosecution of the application. The same could be in the form of comparative tables, in-vitro and in-vivo data [and] also clinical trial data.”

The court also discussed a relevant extract from DS Biopharma v The Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr. with regard to the directions to be followed by patent applicants while attempting to overcome the objections under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970:

“i) The Appellant shall file its response on the basis of the identified known substances and the extracts of the impugned order as set out above. In response, the Appellant may also produce efficacy data and support its submissions as to how Section 3(d) is not applicable.

ii) The said response shall be filed by the Appellant within a period of 8 weeks – upon which, a fresh hearing shall be granted on the issue of whether the claims 1–4 are liable to be granted or not in view of the objections under Section 3(d) of the Act.”

Practice directions for the use of data in patent applications

The court thus issued the following practice directions:

  • For a patent application relating to derivative compounds, “the patent specification, itself, ought to contain some data and results of lab experiments which demonstrate enhancement of efficacy of the subject invention for which [a] patent is sought”; and

  • If additional data “becomes available, the said data ought to be submitted by the patent Applicant, and be placed before the Patent Office prior to the date of final oral hearing”.

Finally, the court noted that patent applicants often file experimental data at the stage of final written submissions. At this stage, the oral hearings before the Patent Office are concluded and the data may not be referred during oral hearings. This may lead to a situation, as in the present case, where the Patent Office is likely to have overlooked the data and failed to consider the same.

There is also the possibility of the data not being completely understandable in written submissions without oral explanation. Therefore, the experimental data for the therapeutic efficacy of a derivative compound should be submitted before the hearing, for the consideration of the controller, in the form of comparative tables, in vitro or in vivo data, or clinical trial data, with a clear explanation as to how the new form of the known substance has significant enhancement in therapeutic efficacy.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
The UPC judges are wrong – restricting access to court documents, and making parties appoint a lawyer only to have a chance of seeing them, is madness
The group, which includes the Volkswagen, Seat and Audi brands, is now licensed to use SEPs owned by more than 60 patent owners
Gift this article