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

A new transatlantic firm under the name of Winston Taylor is expected to go live in May 2026, and is likely to have a significant impact on Europe’s IP market
Geoff Steward and Rebecca Newman of Addleshaw Goddard explain how they secured victory in a rare ‘genericide’ case and why the work went beyond the courtroom
Nancy Frandsen looks back on her career, from answering a paralegal advert to expanding RCCB’s ‘entrepreneurial’ IP practice as a partner
The tie-up could result in the firm’s German and France-based teams, which both have strong UPC expertise, becoming independent
News of a slowdown in the UK’s clean energy IP landscape and an EPO report on unitary patent uptake were also among the top talking points
Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Gift this article