Pfizer Products, Inc. (Pfizer) filed Indian patent application
991/MUMNP/2003 entitled "Chiral Salt Resolution" in the
Indian Patent Office (IPO) on October 27, 2003. The '991
application describes methods for effecting chiral salt resolution
from racemic mixtures of enantiomers, particularly precursor
enantiomers, for use in making pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidine compounds.
The said application is a national phase application of WO
02/096909 (PCT/IB02/01905) filed on May 29, 2002. The First
Examination Report for the present invention was issued on 13th
March, 2008 in which the Examiner rejected claims due to lack of
novelty based on the prior art (WO 0142246) as well on the basis of
Section 3(d). The applicant filed a response on 27th January, 2009
with amended claims. Since there were outstanding objections
related to Novelty, Section 3(d) and Section 8, the applicants were
called for a hearing on January 22, 2015. During the hearing, the
Examiner raised a new objection for the first time that the claims
were unpatentable under Section 3(d) of the India Patents Act 1970,
as amended (Patent Act) and hence the application was rejected.
Pfizer appealed and on October 31, 2014, the Intellectual Property
Appellate Board (IPAB) contended that the patent office had
violated the principles of natural justice thereby set aside the
order and directed the IPO to reconsider the application. Upon
reconsideration, the Indian Patent Office on September 3rd, 2015
denied Pfizer (Applicant) Inc a patent on its rheumatoid arthritis
drug Tofacitinib for the second time. The IPO rejected the Patent
Application on the grounds of anticipation by prior claiming as
well as on basis of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act (Act).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).