The Delhi High Court, in Fresenius Kabi v. Controller, set aside the rejection of a patent application for Sugammadex, citing procedural flaws under Section 14 of the Patents Act. The Court criticized the use of hindsight and mosaicking in prior art analysis.
Delhi High Court Revives Sugammadex Patent Application
In Fresenius Kabi v. Controller, the Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of a patent application for Sugammadex, a pharmaceutical compound used in anesthesia reversal. The Controller had denied the application under Section 15 (novelty) and Section 2(1)(ja) (inventive step), relying on a combination of prior art references.
The Court held that the Controller’s decision violated Section 14 of the Patents Act, 1970, which mandates a fair hearing and proper consideration of submissions. It criticized the use of hindsight and the piecemeal construction of a prior art mosaic, emphasizing that inventive step must be assessed without the benefit of knowing the invention. The judgment also highlighted deficiencies in the treatment of technical evidence, including expert declarations and experimental data.
"The skilled person does not have the advantage of knowing what the invention achieves,"the Court noted. This reinforces the principle against ex post facto analysis. For patent prosecutors, the ruling signals the need for robust responses to combined prior art rejections and careful documentation of technical advantages. It may also prompt greater scrutiny of Controller decisions where substantive technical arguments are dismissed without adequate reasoning.
Citations
- Fresenius Kabi v. Controller, 2026
