Patent Application for Pediatric Anti-aids Drug Nevirapine Rejected

<h1>Patent Application for Pediatric Anti-aids Drug Nevirapine Rejected</h1>Author: <a title="Sudhir Kumar" href="http://www.articlesbase.com/authors/sudhir-kumar/66226.htm">Sudhir Kumar</a> the Indian Patent office at New Delhi rejected a patent application by German drug major Boehringer Ingelheim claiming syrup form of anti-AIDS drug nevirapine. The brief facts of the case were as follows: The base salt i.e. Nevirapine used as anti-AIDS drugs was invented way back in 1989 by Boehringer Ingelheim and the base salt was never patented in India. But later on Boehringer Ingelheim filed an application for Grant of Patent rights for syrup form of its anti-AIDS drug nevirapine. In due course the application was published in the Indian Patent Journal and under the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Indian Patent Act, the Indian Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (INP+) and the Positive Women’s Network (PWN) filed a pre-grant opposition against the said patent application of Boehringer Ingelheim in May 2006 at New Delhi Patent office. The effect of filing of Pre Grant Opposition by any person is that the application may be examined but would not be granted unless the Pre Grant Opposition is set aside. The patent application was objected under the most controversial provision of the Indian Patent Act, i.e. Section 3(d) that prevents many “new forms” of known substances from being patented unless there is a significant improvement in their efficacy with regard to previously known form. Besides that the application was also opposed under section 3(e) of the Indian Patent Act that renders “mere admixtures” of substances resulting in aggregation of properties of the components from being a patentable invention in India. The relevant provisions of the Indian Patent Act read as under: CHAPTER II INVENTIONS NOT PATENTABLE: 3. What are not inventions- the following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act,--- (d):   the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one reactant. Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy. Section 3 (e): a substance obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of the properties of components thereof or a process for producing such substance;  The Patent office agreed with the contention of the Indian Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (INP+) and the Positive Women’s Network (PWN) and rejected the patent application of Boehringer Ingelheim for syrup form of anti-AIDS drug nevirapine under Section 3(d) and (e) of the Indian Patents Act.About the Author: Author is an Advocate and Registered Patent And Trademark Attorney with Aswal Associates and handles IPR division of the firm and is having the vast experience of having being associated with various premier IPR firms of India in the past. The author is also a member of APAA.Article Source: <a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/">ArticlesBase.com</a> - <a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/patents-articles/patent-application-for-pediatric-antiaids-drug-nevirapine-rejected-565715.html" title="Patent Application for Pediatric Anti-aids Drug Nevirapine Rejected">Patent Application for Pediatric Anti-aids Drug Nevirapine Rejected</a>

the Indian Patent office at New Delhi rejected a patent application by German drug major Boehringer Ingelheim claiming syrup form of anti-AIDS drug nevirapine.

The brief facts of the case were as follows:

The base salt i.e. Nevirapine used as anti-AIDS drugs was invented way back in 1989 by Boehringer Ingelheim and the base salt was never patented in India. But later on Boehringer Ingelheim filed an application for Grant of Patent rights for syrup form of its anti-AIDS drug nevirapine. In due course the application was published in the Indian Patent Journal and under the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Indian Patent Act, the Indian Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (INP+) and the Positive Women’s Network (PWN) filed a pre-grant opposition against the said patent application of Boehringer Ingelheim in May 2006 at New Delhi Patent office.

The effect of filing of Pre Grant Opposition by any person is that the application may be examined but would not be granted unless the Pre Grant Opposition is set aside. The patent application was objected under the most controversial provision of the Indian Patent Act, i.e. Section 3(d) that prevents many “new forms” of known substances from being patented unless there is a significant improvement in their efficacy with regard to previously known form.

Besides that the application was also opposed under section 3(e) of the Indian Patent Act that renders “mere admixtures” of substances resulting in aggregation of properties of the components from being a patentable invention in India.

The relevant provisions of the Indian Patent Act read as under:

CHAPTER II

INVENTIONS NOT PATENTABLE:

3. What are not inventions- the following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act,---

(d): the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one reactant.

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.

Section 3 (e): a substance obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of the properties of components thereof or a process for producing such substance;

The Patent office agreed with the contention of the Indian Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (INP+) and the Positive Women’s Network (PWN) and rejected the patent application of Boehringer Ingelheim for syrup form of anti-AIDS drug nevirapine under Section 3(d) and (e) of the Indian Patents Act.

Author is an Advocate and Registered Patent And Trademark Attorney with Aswal Associates and handles IPR division of the firm and is having the vast experience of having being associated with various premier IPR firms of India in the past. The author is also a member of APAA.

Rate this Article:

0 / 5 stars - 0 vote(s)

Re-Publish

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/patents-articles/patent-application-for-pediatric-antiaids-drug-nevirapine-rejected-565715.html

Related Videos
Related Articles
Ask / Related Q&A

Play

Fixing The Heart Eliminates Migraines

Play

How to Protect Your Ideas

Play

Weight Loss Hypnosis Through NLP

Play

Inventing tips from Trevor Baylis

Play

What is Patent Ductus Artiriosus

Latest Patents Articles
More from Sudhir Kumar

The answers to all your prototype questions!

By: Russell Williams | 18/11/2009
In this article I will discuss the three most popular questions I receive when it comes to a prototype. What is a prototype? Should I develop a prototype? Reasons to develop a prototype.

Steps to Conduct a Patent Search

By: John Mathew | 10/11/2009
A patent refers to the right granted to an inventor for discovering any new machine, useful process or a manufacturing item.

Can I really sell my idea?

By: Russell Williams | 06/11/2009
Yes; however, it is important to understand what you need to have in place to increase your odds of success. As you move your idea through the invention and patent process, your odds of success increase as your idea becomes more tangible and real.

Company Incorporation -The Procedure for Incorporating A Company in India

By: chaman | 28/10/2009
Company incorporation is the act of making an official application to Companies House to create a company, which is well known the process of formation or process of incorporation. Full company name, the officers of the company and the principal address of the company on the register of companies held at Companies House are required to formalize the formation of a company.

Will Riches Come From Your Invention Submission

By: Oli Osorhan | 27/10/2009
Overcome the barriers of making money from your revolutionary idea. The 4 barriers that stand in your way of obtaining a patent and selling it.

What is the difference between an idea and an invention and how do I properly document my idea?

By: Russell Williams | 26/10/2009
The dictionary defines an invention as “a device, contrivance or process originated after study and experiment.” An idea is defined as “a formulated thought or opinion.”

What do I need to think about first in taking my idea to market?

By: Russell Williams | 21/10/2009
Many inventors believe that they need to spend tens of thousands of dollars developing and manufacturing their ideas on their own to succeed, which is why you read so many stories about inventors who spent their life savings chasing an invention. While manufacturing is one option for certain inventors, it is not the most common option and certainly not the least risky.

Supreme Court of India adjudicates on dichotomy introduced for the first time by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, in the Patent Law

By: Sudhir Kumar | 20/10/2009
Supreme Court of India in its civil appellate jurisdiction adjudicated on a Patent dispute titled J. Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. versus Asst. Controller of Patents & Design. & Ors.The Supreme Court granted the leave and directed the High Court to adjudicate the matter in interest of justice for only two appeals of such kind were pending in the High Courts. The special circumstances arises because of dichotomy introduced for the first time by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005

Supreme Court of India adjudicates on dichotomy introduced for the first time by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, in the Patent Law

By: Sudhir Kumar | 20/10/2009 | Patents
Supreme Court of India in its civil appellate jurisdiction adjudicated on a Patent dispute titled J. Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. versus Asst. Controller of Patents & Design. & Ors.The Supreme Court granted the leave and directed the High Court to adjudicate the matter in interest of justice for only two appeals of such kind were pending in the High Courts. The special circumstances arises because of dichotomy introduced for the first time by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005

PATENT FILING REQUIREMENTS IN INDIA

By: Sudhir Kumar | 16/06/2009 | Patents
To minimize the cost of Patent filing and prosecution in India, there are number of things an attorney should take in to account. In the event you are filing a PCT national phase application, provide your associate in India following information:

SAMSUNG CHALLENGES CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INDIA'S CUSTOMS REGULATIONS GOVERNING IMPORT OF IP GOODS

By: Sudhir Kumar | 07/04/2009 | Intellectual Property
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Indian arm of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd has challenged the constitutionality of India's customs regulations governing the import of IP goods in Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition. Samsung India is aggrieved by action of the Indian customs department that is not clearing its imports of dual-SIM-card mobile phones in view of application for registration of patent rights filed by the patentee in respect of similar technology with custom office.

Tradedress and Its Interpretation by Courts in India

By: Sudhir Kumar | 05/02/2009 | Intellectual Property
Trade dress refers to characteristics of the visual or sensual appearance of a product that may also include its packaging which may be registered and protected from being used by competitors in relation to their business and services. The characteristic includes their shape (3 dimensional), packaging, colour, graphic design or even the smell of the product.

Patent Application for Pediatric Anti-aids Drug Nevirapine Rejected

By: Sudhir Kumar | 17/09/2008 | Patents
Patent office of India located at New Delhi rejected a patent application by German drug major Boehringer Ingelheim claiming syrup form of anti-AIDS drug nevirapine. The base salt i.e. Nevirapine was invented in 1989 by Boehringer Ingelheim and was not patented in India. Later on Boehringer Ingelheim filed an application for registration of syrup form of anti-AIDS drug nevirapine. After publication of application in the Indian Patent Journal the Indian Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS

Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Entertainment Network (india) Ltd. “radio Mirchi” and Refers Matter Back to Copyright Board for Compulsory License

By: Sudhir Kumar | 17/09/2008 | Copyright
M/s Entertainment Network (India) owner of FM Radia “Radio Mirchi” Ltd filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against M/s Super Cassette Industries Ltd owner of “T-Series” brand. The matter involved interpretation of Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Supreme Court was of the opinion that the order of the Board should be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Board again for the consideration of the matter afresh on merit and on those terms appeal was allowed.

Supreme Courts Bars Challenge to “peter Scot” on Principles of Acquiescence And/ or Waiver

By: Sudhir Kumar | 17/09/2008 | Trademarks
Khoday Distilleries Limited (Now known as Khoday India Limited) filed an appeal against judgment and order dated 12th October, 2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Trade Mark Second Appeal (TMSA) No. 2 of 1998 affirming the judgment and order dated 25th September, 1998 passed in T.M.A. No.3 of 1989 whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 arising out of an order date