The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of a patent for 'Co-crystals of Tramadol and Coxibs' for lack of inventive step, affirming Controller’s decision under Section 2(1)(ja). The ruling clarifies that novelty alone does not suffice for patentability.
Delhi HC on Inventive Step: Esteve Pharmaceuticals
In an August 7, 2026 order, the Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of a patent application by Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. for 'Co-crystals of Tramadol and Coxibs', holding that the invention lacked inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970. While the court accepted the novelty of the co-crystal formulation, it concurred with the Controller of Patents and Designs that the advancement did not meet the threshold of non-obviousness required for patentability.
The court applied a tiered analysis, first assessing novelty and then proceeding to inventive step. It emphasized that even structurally distinguishable compounds must demonstrate technical superiority or unexpected results to qualify as inventive. The applicant had argued improved stability and solubility, but the court found insufficient evidence linking these properties directly to the claimed co-crystal structure.
For IP practitioners, the decision reinforces the importance of robust experimental data in patent prosecution. It also cautions against overreliance on structural novelty without functional differentiation. As pharmaceutical patents face heightened scrutiny, this ruling provides clarity on the evidentiary burden for establishing inventive step in co-crystal and formulation patents.
Citations
- Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v. Controller of Patents and Designs (2026)
- Section 2(1)(ja), Patents Act, 1970
