Patent Law
Subject : Civil Law - Intellectual Property Law
In a significant ruling for the pharmaceutical industry, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a patent application for a sustained-release formulation of exenatide. Presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia, the court affirmed that the proposed invention lacked an "inventive step" as required under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, citing extensive prior art.
The appellants, Amylin Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, sought patent protection for a "manufactured pre-mixed formulation for injection" using exenatide—a drug primarily used for Type 2 diabetes. The core of their application focused on a formulation containing microspheres suspended in a non-aqueous carrier comprising triglycerides of C6 to C12 fatty acids.
The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs had previously rejected the application in 2018, arguing that the combination of elements claimed—specifically the use of pre-mixed formulations and specific stabilizers—would have been obvious to a Person Skilled in the Art (PSITA) based on existing literature.
The appellants argued that their invention bridged a critical gap in medical delivery, eliminating the need for daily injections and offering superior stability and patient compliance. They contended that neither the specific non-aqueous carrier nor the precise combination of ingredients was disclosed in the cited prior art (D1-D4). They further emphasized that their formulation provides a "one-component" solution that avoids the complexities and potential risks of standard two-component systems.
Conversely, the Respondent maintained that the claimed formulation was merely a predictable development. The Counsel for the Respondent demonstrated how prior art references—specifically D1 (microsphere systems), D2 (GLP-1 analogues and stabilizers), and D4 (sustained-release polypeptides)—already contained
inventive step - sustained release - pharmaceutical formulation - prior art - non-obviousness - pharmacokinetics
#PatentLaw #DelhiHighCourt
Calcutta HC Questions Speaker’s Power to Appoint LoP
16 Jun 2026
Ponraj Challenges FIR Over Alleged Defamatory Political Remarks
16 Jun 2026
Outsourced Employees Lack Right to Promotion; Unauthorized Designation Upgrades Are Legally Void: Uttarakhand High Court
16 Jun 2026
Assigning Administrative Charges to Tainted Officials Violates Natural Justice: MP High Court Quashes PWD Order
16 Jun 2026
Mandatory Administrative Enquiry Precedes FIR Against Public Servants Under SC/ST Act: Uttarakhand High Court
16 Jun 2026
SC Rules Walking on Footpaths is Fundamental Right
19 Jun 2026
Accommodation Requests Do Not Constitute Mala Fide Transfers: MP High Court Upholds Government Authority
23 Jun 2026
Denial of 7th Pay Commission to NHM Employees Despite Approved Service Bye-laws is Arbitrary: Punjab & Haryana High Court
23 Jun 2026
Arbitrary Termination of Long-Term Workers Illegal: Orissa HC
29 Jun 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.