The Delhi High Court in Esteve Pharmaceuticals v. CPD (2026) upheld the rejection of a patent for lack of inventive step, while affirming novelty, marking a nuanced application of Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Delhi High Court Upholds Patent Rejection on Inventive Step Grounds
In a significant order dated August 7, 2026, the Delhi High Court in Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v. Controller of Patents and Designs examined the patentability of 'Co-crystals of Tramadol and Coxibs', adopting a tiered analytical approach. While the Court held that the invention met the threshold of novelty under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, it ultimately upheld the Controller’s rejection on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja).
The Controller had previously refused the application, citing obviousness in light of prior art. The Court agreed, noting that the claimed co-crystal formulation did not involve a technical advance or economic significance sufficient to distinguish it from known principles.
The mere selection or combination of known compounds, without a demonstrated synergistic effect or unexpected technical result, cannot support a patent grant,the Court observed, reinforcing settled jurisprudence on non-obviousness.
This decision clarifies that novelty and inventive step are distinct and cumulative requirements. Practitioners must ensure patent specifications articulate not only differences from the prior art but also a demonstrable inventive leap. The ruling may influence how pharmaceutical patents are drafted and examined, especially in selection inventions.
Citations
- Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v. Controller of Patents and Designs (2026)
