The Delhi High Court in Esteve Pharmaceuticals v. Controller upheld rejection of a patent for lack of inventive step, applying a tiered analysis of novelty and non-obviousness under Sections 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(ja). The ruling clarifies procedural hierarchy in patent appeals.
Delhi HC Upholds Patent Rejection in Esteve Case
The Delhi High Court, in Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v. Controller of Patents and Designs (2026), affirmed the rejection of a patent application for ‘Co-crystals of Tramadol and Coxibs’, accepting that while the invention met novelty requirements under Section 2(1)(j), it failed the inventive step threshold under Section 2(1)(ja). The August 7 order introduced a tiered analytical framework, prioritizing novelty before assessing non-obviousness.
The Court held that even if an invention is novel, it must independently satisfy the inventive step criterion. It endorsed the Controller’s findings that the co-crystal formulation was an obvious combination known to a person skilled in the art.
“Merely discovering a new form of a known substance, without enhanced efficacy, does not warrant patent protection,”the judgment stated, referencing Natco Pharma v. Union of India and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.
This tiered approach may influence how appellate courts review patent rejections. By structuring analysis sequentially, the ruling promotes clarity and consistency in judicial review of technical determinations. Patent practitioners should anticipate heightened scrutiny of inventive step, especially in pharmaceutical cases involving incremental innovations.
Citations
- Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v. Controller of Patents and Designs, 2026
- Section 2(1)(j), (ja), Patents Act, 1970
- Section 3(d), Patents Act, 1970
