The Delhi High Court ruled in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents that patent objections must be substantiated by claims and evidence, rather than merely cited. This ruling emphasizes the necessity for a more rigorous application of the inventive step and relevance to Sections 3(d) and 3(i).
Delhi High Court Highlights Importance of Evidence in Patent Objections
The Delhi High Court, in its landmark ruling on the case of Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents, emphasized that patent objections must be directly linked to the claims and evidence instead of merely cited. The judgment underscores the need for concrete reasoning and evidence when challenging patents.
The Court examined objections related to inventive step and referred to Sections 3(d) and 3(i), reiterating the importance of substantiating claims with relevant evidence. The judgment clarified that merely citing legal provisions or past judgments without proper application to the specific facts of the case is insufficient.
Despite the clarity this ruling provides, it also leaves some questions unresolved, particularly pertaining to the scope of evidence that can be utilized in patent objections. This aspect may require further elucidation in future cases.
For practitioners, this decision serves as a crucial reminder to ensure that any objections to patent grants are thoroughly supported with substantial evidence, aligning with the specific claims made. As such, legal representatives or patent attorneys must prepare comprehensive filings that go beyond simple references to legal provisions.
Citations
- Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents (2026) 1 DHC 101
