Novartis AG v. Union of India
(2013) 6 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India
The beta-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate failed section 3(d); enhanced therapeutic efficacy over the known substance was not proved.
Unit II · Intellectual Property Law
Patentable subject-matter, novelty, inventive step and section 3(d)
Study aid only. Confirm statute numbers with the current bare Act and the official OU LL.B. (3-YDC) 2024–25 syllabus PDF.
Statute sections
| Act / instrument | Section | Name |
|---|---|---|
| Patents Act, 1970 | 2(1)(j) | Invention |
| Patents Act, 1970 | 3 | What are not inventions |
| Patents Act, 1970 | 3(d) | Mere discovery of a new form of a known substance without enhanced efficacy |
| Patents Act, 1970 | 10 | Contents of specification |
Landmark cases
Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries
AIR 1982 SC 1444 · Supreme Court of India
A patent requires novelty and utility; a workshop improvement obvious to a skilled person is not an invention.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty
447 U.S. 303 (1980) · Supreme Court of the United States
A live, human-made micro-organism was patentable subject-matter as a manufacture or composition of matter.