Summary of 3(d) and 3(e) decisions in 2010 at the IPDTO

In a previous post, we saw the break-up of decisions at the Indian Patents, Designs and Trademark Office (IPDTO) in the calendar year 2010.  Because of the importance of sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Indian patent act, this post analyzes decisions related to sections 3(d) and 3(e) in the calendar year 2010.  The complete file containing the decisions analyzed can be seen here.
We were not surprised to see that in 12 out of the 21 possible cases, the Controller refused the grant of the application.  Only seven  applications were allowed and two were partially allowed.  However, what was surprising was that five out of the seven applications that were allowed, were from the Delhi patent office!! We leave the judgment whether the Delhi patent office is more generous in allowing applications – than the other patent offices to our readers!!
The other thing where we were not surprised was that none of the decisions relating to 3(d) even attempted to co-relate therapeutic efficacy and define a factual benchmark for the claims under consideration.  Another instance where we were not surprised was the lack of consistency in the Controller’s decisions.  As an example, there are cases where Controller cited a medical dictionary to define efficacy, others used the Madras High Court decision, some other decisions did not refer to efficacy but stressed on the absence of comparative data.  We have highlighted the key portions of all decisions in the analysis, available here.