In the case of Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court reiterated that patent objections must be substantiated with evidence rather than being mere assertions. The ruling underscored the importance of claim-specific details when assessing inventive steps under Sections 3(d) and 3(i) of the Patents Act.
Delhi High Court Ruling Clarifies Patent Objection Standards
The Delhi High Court's ruling in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents emphasizes that objections to patents must be anchored in claims and valid evidence. The Court criticized the mere citation of legal provisions without applying them substantively to the facts of the case.
During the proceedings, the Court focused on the objections raised regarding inventive step, specifically referencing Section 3(d) which pertains to the patentability of pharmaceutical substances, and Section 3(i) that addresses non-patentable subject matter. The Court made it clear that invoking these sections without adequate claim-specific analysis is insufficient for challenging patent validity.
This decision is significant for patent practitioners and applicants as it establishes a clear expectation: objections must be detailed and factually substantiated to succeed. The judgment prompts legal professionals to prepare robust evidence and clear arguments when challenging the validity of patents, especially in the realm of pharmaceuticals.
Citations
- Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents (2026) DHC
