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 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

News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
Gift this article