Madras High Court
Intervet International B.V vs Deputy Controller Of Patents & Design on 21 November, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
2024:MHC:3902
(T) CMA (PT) No.119 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 14.11.2024
Pronounced on : 21.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
(T) CMA (PT) No.119 of 2023
1.Intervet International B.V.
Through its Authorised Representative
J.J.L.Mestrom
2.Microbial Chemistry Research Foundation,
Through its Authorised Representative
Masakatsu Shibasaki .. Appellants
-vs-
Deputy Controller of Patents & Design,
Intellectual Property Office Building,
CP-2 Sector V, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata - 700 091. .. Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 117-A of the
Patents Act, 1970 prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the present
appeal, pass an order setting aside the impugned order of the respondent
dated 29.12.2017 and pass an order granting a patent on Indian Patent
Application No.449/CHENP/2010 and issue consequential directions to
effectuate such grant.
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(T) CMA (PT) No.119 of 2023
For appellants : Ms.Vindhya S.Mani for
Mr.Lakshmi Kumaran and
Mr.Sridharan
For respondent : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel,
SPCGSL
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed, challenging the order dated 29.12.2017
refusing to grant patent to the appellants for their invention on the ground
that the so called invention claimed by the appellants is not patentable under
Section 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970.
2.According to the appellants, the impugned order is a non-speaking
order and by total non-application of mind, the claimed invention of the
appellants, which relates to solvated and non-solvated crystalline forms of
20, 23 dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-tylonolide, which exhibits
advantageous physical and chemical stability, thermodynamic, kinetic and
filtration properties, which has technical advancements as well as economic
significance and is also not obvious to a person skilled in the art, grant of
patent to the appellants has been refused by the respondent by wrongly
applying Section 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.Learned counsel for the appellants drew the attention of this Court
to the impugned order and would submit that the impugned order violates
the principles of natural justice as the reasoning, provided by the respondent
to arrive at the conclusion, is insufficient. According to her, the respondent
failed to take into consideration the declaration of the expert Dr.Ralf
Warrass, who clearly demonstrated the higher stability of the claimed
crystalline form 20, 23 dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-tylonolide, the
claimed invention of the appellants, which is advanced than the amorphous
forms disclosed in the cited prior arts and also the other polymorphous
forms. According to her, the respondent, under the impugned order, has
arbitrarily held that superior stability data does not constitute enhancement
of the known efficacy and therefore, Section 3(d) of the Patents Act gets
attracted. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, none of the
facts as to superior stability of the claimed crystalline form of 20, 23 -
dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-tylonolide are in dispute and it is not the
case that the respondent has questioned the correctness of these
submissions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of the aforesaid
submission, relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of
Regents of University of California vs. Union of India and others
reported in 2019 (79) PTC 55 (Del) and would submit that as per the said
decision, the Controller should indicate the reasons as to how he has rejected
the affidavit of known experts. According to her, in the impugned order, no
reasons have been given by the respondent for ignoring the declaration of the
expert Dr.Ralf Warrass and therefore, the impugned order is a non-speaking
order. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that stability plays
an important role in the therapeutic efficacy of a drug. According to her, a
more stable drug will not decompose into its by products resulting in higher
and longer bio-availability, which in turn results in higher therapeutic
efficacy.
5.In support of her submission, she relies upon Section 7.2.4.3 of
Chapter 7 of the Book titled Nanoscale Fabrication, Optimization, Scale-up
and Biological Aspects of Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology. According to
her, the pending claims 1-9 of the appellants’ patent application are fully in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compliance of the statutory requirements for grant of patent and therefore,
the respondent's finding is contrary and therefore, the impugned order has to
be set aside.
6.Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the
impugned order is in manifest error of law and ex facie erroneous because
the respondent has not followed the guidelines issued by the Patent Office.
According to her, in paragraph No.1.17 of the guidelines for examination of
Patent Applications in the field of Pharmaceuticals, issued by the Controller
General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks in October 2014, guidelines
have been given to the respondent for examination of pharmaceuticals
patents. But the said guidelines have not been followed by the respondent
under the impugned order. According to the learned counsel for the
appellants, the respondent has effectively admitted in the impugned order
that the instant claimed polymorphic form of the compound of Formula 1 is
a new/novel form (crystalline form) of dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-
tylonolide. Therefore, having admitted that the appellants' claimed invention
is a new form of known substance, the respondent ought to have granted
patent to the appellants. According to the learned counsel for the appellants,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the respondent has erred in applying Section 3(e) of the Patents Act as well
to the invention claimed by the appellants.
7.According to her, Section 3(e) of the Patents Act is not attracted.
According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the active ingredient of
the claimed composition i.e. 20,23 dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-
tylonolide is admittedly a new or novel ingredient and there is data on record
suggesting that the active ingredient has unexpected qualities of superior
stability and is technically advanced over the other forms of cited prior arts.
Learned counsel for the appellants would also submit that Section 64(1)(h)
of the Patents Act further elaborates the requirement under Section 10(4)(a)
of the Act, such that it provides the description of the method or the
instructions for working of the invention with complete specification, which
is sufficient to enable a person skilled in the art, to work on the invention.
According to her, the said requirement does not in any manner mandate
providing synergistic data of the related activities of the individual
constituents of the claimed composition. Therefore, according to her, the
respondent had committed an error by applying Section 3(e) of the Act for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
refusing to grant patent.
8.Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
respondent has faltered at the stage of examination itself and that there has
been no application of mind whatsoever on the part of the respondent in
determining the patentability of the subject matter, claimed by the appellants
in the Patent Application. To summarise her submissions, learned counsel
for the appellants would submit that it is amply clear that the claimed
invention is an important technical advancement over the existing prior arts.
Further, according to her, the respondent, under the impugned order, has
erroneously held that the subject matter of the appellants’ invention is not
patentable as the provisions of Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act is
attracted. Learned counsel for the appellants would also submit that a
similar patent application has been granted in multiple jurisdictions
including USA, Russia, Japan, Australia and other countries.
9.Learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon a judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar vs. State of
Maharashtra and another reported in 2012 (13) SCC 14 and would
submit that the application of mind and recording of reasoned decisions are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the basic elements of natural justice. Relying upon the aforesaid decision,
learned counsel for the appellants would submit that since the impugned
order has been passed by total non-application of mind and the same is not
supported by reasons, the impugned order has to be set aside by this Court
on account of violation of principles of natural justice.
10.Learned counsel for the appellants also drew the attention of this
Court to a decision rendered by the Delhi High Court dated 30.08.2022 in
C.A. (Comm.IPD-PAT)6/2021 and I.A. 12828 of 2021 in the case of DS
Biopharma Limited vs. The Controller of Patents and Designs and
another and would submit that there is no necessity for the appellants to
plead that there is an enhanced therapeutic efficacy in the appellants’
invention and it would suffice if the appellants are able to prove that there is
an enhanced therapeutic efficacy in their invention. According to her, as per
the aforesaid decision, it is clear that only in cases of application seeking for
revocation of the patent, the said applicant must plead as well as prove that
the invention is not patentable. According to the learned counsel for the
appellants, the appellants, having proved that their invention has enhanced
therapeutic efficacy, the respondent ought to have granted patent to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellants.
11.On the other hand, the learned SPCGSL (Special Panel Counsel)
for the respondent would reiterate the contents of the impugned order and
would submit that only due to the fact that the appellants failed to satisfy
that their invention has enhanced therapeutic efficacy, the appellants have
been refused to be granted with the patent under the impugned order.
According to him, the appellants completely failed to establish before the
respondent that the enhanced stability resulted in enhanced therapeutic
efficacy. He also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Novartis AG vs. Union of India and others reported in
MANU/SC/0281/2013 and would submit that the claimed invention of the
appellants has failed to meet the standards prescribed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court for the grant of patent to a new form of pharmaceutical
substance. By relying upon the said judgment, he further submitted that
since the enhanced therapeutic efficacy is the only measure of enhanced
efficacy, the increased stability is insufficient unless it is shown to result in
enhanced therapeutic efficacy. Learned SPCGSL for the respondent also
submitted that every aspect of the appellants’ claimed invention has been
considered by the respondent and only thereafter, the impugned order came
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to be passed refusing to grant patent to the appellants. According to him, the
impugned order is a speaking order and the respondent has not committed
violation of principles of natural justice.
Discussion:
12.The subject matter of the claimed invention relates to solvated and
non-solvated crystalline forms of 20, 23 dipiperidinyl-5-O- mycaminosyl-
tylonolide. The appellants claim that their invention exhibits increased
physical and chemical stability, thermodynamic, kinetic and filtration
properties. The appellants also claim that their invention has technical
advancements as well as economic significance over what is known in art
and is also not obvious to a person skilled in art. A categorical assertion has
been made by the appellants that the prior art Documents relied upon by the
respondent, namely, D1 and D2 do not disclose all the elements of the
claimed invention.
13.According to the appellants, the document D1 does not disclose the
crystalline 20, 23 dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-tylonolide or solvates, as
claimed in the pending claims 1-9 of the instant patent application and the
same has also been acknowledged by the respondent in the First
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Examination Report dated 21.10.2016 stating that “D1 does not disclose
crystalline 20, 23 dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyltylonolide, according to the
current claims 1-4 or solvates according to claims 5 and 6. D1 does not
disclose the use of said crystalline forms or solvates for treating disease in an
animal.” Under the settled rule of novelty, it is necessary that the prior art is
an enabling disclosure, i.e., each element of the application must be
disclosed in the prior art document. However, under the impugned order, no
reasons have been given as to why the prior art document D1 was taken into
consideration for refusing to grant patent despite the fact that the respondent
in the First Examination Report dated 21.10.2016 has observed that “D1
does not disclose crystalline 20, 23 dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-
tylonolide, according to the current claims 1-4 or solvates according to
claims 5 and 6. D1 does not disclose the use of said crystalline forms or
solvates for treating disease in an animal”. The prior art document D2 cited
by the respondent was published on 31.01.2008, which is later than the
priority date of the instant application submitted by the appellants i.e. on
26.07.2007. However, under the impugned order, without giving any reason,
the respondent has relied upon the prior art document namely, D2, which is
subsequent to the date of the appellants’ patent application i.e. on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26.07.2007.
14.Therefore, this Court is of the view that the objections raised by the
appellants with regard to the prior art documents, namely, D1 and D2,
referred to supra, have not been considered, on merits and in accordance
with law. The requirement to show enhanced efficacy by the appellants arise
as per Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, which reads as follows:
3....
(d) the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance
which does not result in the enhancement of the known
efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new
property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use
of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known
process results in a new product or employs at least one new
reactant.'
15.The respondent, under the impugned order, has not given an
opportunity for the appellants as per the explanation to Section 3(d) of the
Act to prove that the appellants' claimed invention is a new form of known
substance, having enhanced therapeutic efficacy. Having not being granted
with such an opportunity as per explanation to Section 3(d) of the Act, it is
clear that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Section 3(d) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Patents Act, 1970 and also in violation of principles of natural justice.
There is no reasoning whatsoever found in the impugned order to indicate
that the crystalline form 20, 23 dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-tylonolide as
claimed by the respondent in the pending claim 1 of the patent application
constitutes mere discovery of a new form of the known substance. The
appellants had submitted a declaration of Dr.Ralf Warrass, an expert, which
according to them, clearly demonstrated the higher stability of the claimed
crystalline form 20, 23 dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-tylonolide and the
stable crystalline forms of tylonolide compound (as claimed in claim 1) is
technically advanced than the amorphous forms, disclosed in the cited prior
arts and also the other polymorphous forms. But the Expert Affidavit of
Dr.Ralf Warrass has not been given due consideration in the impugned
order.
16.The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Regents of
University of California vs. Union of India and others reported in 2019
(79) PTC 55 (Del) supports the case of the appellants as in the said decision
also, the impugned order refusing to grant patent was completely silent on
the affidavit of experts, submitted by the appellants. The Delhi High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
held that the affidavit of the experts submitted by the appellants cannot be
considered to be irrelevant without giving any reason for coming to such a
conclusion and the Controller was required to indicate the reasons as to why
the affidavit of experts, submitted by the appellants, has been rejected.
Stability plays an important role in the therapeutic efficacy of a drug. The
appellants claim that a more stable drug will not decompose into its by-
products resulting in higher and longer bio-availability, which in turn results
in higher therapeutic efficacy. The appellants therefore submitted that the
pending claims 1-9 of the instant patent application is fully in compliance
with the provisions of Section 3(d) of the Act and the respondent's finding is
contrary to the same. There is no reasoning given by the respondent in the
impugned order with regard to the aforesaid contention of the appellants.
The guidelines issued by the Patent Office in October 2014, which makes it
clear in paragraph 1.17 that "for examination of pharmaceutical patents,
incorporating the analysis of the Courts with the objective that the guidelines
will help improve the examination standard and will introduce harmonious
practice amongst the technical officers of the system", has not been adhered
to as the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural
justice and it is a non-speaking order with regard to the contentions of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellants.
17.In paragraph 10.12, Section 3(e) of the guidelines for examination
of Patent Applications in the field of Pharmaceuticals, issued by the
Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks in October 2014 is
simply a codification of the intent to prevent patents on the mere placing
together of old integers. This Court fails to understand as to why under the
impugned order, the respondent having admitted that "the instant claimed
polymorphic form of the compound of Formula 1 by the appellants is a new/
novel form (crystalline form) 20, 23 dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-
tylonolide for an already known compound has refused to consider the case
of the appellants for grant of patent. No reasons have been given by the
respondent under the impugned order for arriving at such a conclusion.
Section 64(1)(h) of the Patents Act further elaborates the requirement under
Section 10(4)(a) of the Act such that it provides the description of the
method or the instructions for working of the invention with complete
specification, which is sufficient to enable a person skilled in the art to work
on the invention.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18.Moreover, as seen from Section 10(4)(a) of the Patents Act, it does
not mandate providing synergistic data of the related activities of the
individual constituents of the claimed composition. No reasons have been
given by the respondent with regard to the contentions of the appellants in
the impugned order for applying Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. In
the impugned order, the respondent has observed that superior stability data
can never be interpreted as superior therapeutic efficacy. The reasons for
coming to such a conclusion with regard to the appellants Patent Application
has not been given by the respondent under the impugned order. The
appellants categorically contend that their claimed invention has enhanced
therapeutic efficacy and in support of the said contention, they have
produced materials, which includes the Declaration of Dr.Ralf Warrass, an
Expert in the field. Since the respondent has not given reasons as to why the
appellants' claimed invention will not have enhanced therapeutic efficacy
and the appellants have also not been provided with an opportunity to
submit further explanation to prove that their invention has enhanced
therapeutic efficacy, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned
order is a non-speaking order and has been passed in violation of principles
of natural justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19.In the decisions, relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellants in the case of Novartis AG vs. Union of India (UOI) and others
reported in MANU/SC/0281/2013 and in the case of DS Biopharma
Limited vs The Controller of Patents and Designs and another reported
in C.A. (Comm.IPD-PAT) 6/2021 dated 30.08.2022, it has been held that
it would suffice if the applicants are able to prove that their claimed
invention has enhanced therapeutic efficacy and there is no necessity to take
a specific plea in their application that the claimed invention has therapeutic
efficacy. Only in cases of revocation of patents, a specific plea will have to
be taken that the invention does not have enhanced therapeutic efficacy and
the person seeking revocation also has to prove that the invention does not
have therapeutic efficacy and therefore, it is hit by Section 3(d) of the
Patents Act. The Patents Act also provides for amendment of the patent
application under Section 59, which reads as follows:
'59. Supplementary provisions as to amendment of application
or specification -
(1) No amendment of an application for a patent or a complete
specification or any document relating thereto shall be made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
except by way of disclaimer, correction or explanation, and no
amendment thereof shall be allowed, except for the purpose of
incorporation of actual fact, and no amendment of a complete
specification shall be allowed, the effect of which would be
that the specification as amended would claim or describe
matter not in substance disclosed or shown in the specification
before the amendment, or that any claim of the specification as
amended would not fall wholly within the scope of a claim of
the specification before the amendment;
(2) Where after the date of grant of patent any amendment of
the specification or any other documents related thereto is
allowed by the Controller or by the Appellate Board or the
High Court, as the case may be —
(a) the amendment shall for all purposes be deemed to
form part of the specification along with other documents
related thereto;
(b) the fact that the specification or any other
documents related thereto has been amended shall be
published as expeditiously as possible; and
(c) the right of the applicant or patentee to make
amendment shall not be called in question except on the
ground of fraud.
(3)In construing the specification as amended, reference may
be made to the specification as originally accepted.'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20.As seen from the aforementioned Section, it is clear that by way of
disclaimer, correction or explanation, the amendment application can be
filed. In the case on hand, the appellants categorically state that their
invention has enhanced therapeutic efficacy and therefore, it will not be hit
by any of the subsection of Sections 3 and 4 of the Patents Act. The case, as
pleaded by the appellants is not a case of altering the appellants' Original
Patent Application. The appellants, at no point of time, claims to have
changed their stand with regard to the contents of the Original Patent
Application, submitted by them. Therefore, in order to strengthen their case
for the grant of patent as prayed for in the Patent Application, the appellants
are legally entitled to seek for amendment of their Original Patent
Application to give further explanation to strengthen their case for the grant
of patent as per the Original Application.
21.Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970 legally empowers the
appellants to file an Amendment Application by way of disclaimer,
correction or explanation in respect of their Original Patent Application. In
the impugned order, the respondent has not emphasised enough on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
points raised by the appellants and no proper analysis has been done on the
contentions of the appellants before arriving at the impugned decision. The
reasoned orders are the mandate for refusing to grant patent by the
respondent. The principles of natural justice are also indispensable and
compliance with the doctrine of audi alteram partem are mandatory in the
cases of this nature. This Court understands that it cannot assume the role of
Controller and substitute the decisions given by the quasi-judicial authority
without any valid reason. However, it must be essentially noted that the law
is clear as to decision-making process of quasi-judicial authorities should
adhere to the principles of natural justice and should pass speaking orders.
22.For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 29.12.2017
passed by the respondent, refusing to grant patent to the appellants, suffers
from violation of principles of natural justice and it is a non-speaking order
with regard to the contentions of the appellants, which was also raised
before the respondent and therefore, the impugned order has to be quashed
and the matter has to be remanded back to the respondent for fresh
consideration, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to
be fixed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23.In the interest of justice, this Court deems it fit to direct the
respondent to appoint an Officer other than the officer, who issued the
impugned order for the purpose of adjudicating the appellants' Patent
Application and in order to avoid the possibility of pre-determination.
24.In the result, the impugned order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the
respondent is set aside and this appeal is disposed of and the matter is
remanded back for re-consideration, on merits and in accordance with law,
within a period of six months by issuing the following directions:
a)In the ends of justice and in order to avoid the possibility of
pre-determination, an officer other than the officer, who issued the
impugned order, shall undertake the re-consideration;
b)Such re-consideration shall be undertaken by taking into account
the observations set out in this judgment;
c)Amendment applications, if any, to the complete specification or
claims shall be permitted if within the frame work of the complete
specification;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
d)A fresh order in Indian Patent Application No.449/CHENP/2010
shall be issued within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
No costs.
21.11.2024
vga
Index : Yes/ No
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
NCC : Yes/ No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.
vga
To
Deputy Controller of Patents & Design,
Intellectual Property Office Building,
CP-2 Sector V, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata - 700 091.
pre-delivery judgment in
21.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
