The Delhi High Court in Esteve Pharmaceuticals v CPD applied a tiered analysis: upheld lack of inventive step despite novelty. Clarifies judicial review standards in patent rejections.
Delhi HC Upholds Patent Rejection in Esteve Case
The Delhi High Court, in Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v. Controller of Patents and Designs (2026), adopted a tiered approach to examining patent rejection, affirming that while the invention — 'Co-crystals of Tramadol and Coxibs' — met the novelty requirement under Section 2(1)(j), it failed the inventive step test under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
The court acknowledged the Controller’s findings that the claimed co-crystal formulation was obvious over prior art, involving no 'inventive leap'. Notably, the Court declined to assess sufficiency of disclosure under Section 10(4), as the lack of inventive step rendered further inquiry unnecessary. This reflects a structured judicial approach: first determining patentability prerequisites before proceeding to secondary grounds.
"The presence of novelty does not automatically entitle an invention to a patent if it lacks inventive ingenuity,"
the order stated. This reinforces the principle that inventive step remains a critical filter in pharmaceutical patents, especially where combinations involve known substances. For patent practitioners, this clarifies that appeals will scrutinize technical substance, not just formal compliance. It may impact strategy in drafting and arguing pharmaceutical patents involving synergistic or crystalline forms.
Citations
- Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v. CPD, 2026 Del HC
- Section 2(1)(ja), Patents Act, 1970
