Divisional Patent Application Disputes India
Divisional Patent Applications in India – Overview
Divisional patent applications are a type of patent filing allowed under the Indian Patents Act, 1970. They are typically filed when:
The parent application discloses multiple inventions – the Patent Office requires splitting into separate applications to comply with Section 16(1) of the Patents Act.
Filing Timing: A divisional must be filed before the grant of the parent patent.
Ownership and Priority: Divisional inherits the priority date of the parent application.
Key Legal Issues in Divisional Patent Disputes:
Whether the parent application disclosed multiple inventions justifying a divisional.
Priority and novelty conflicts between parent and divisional.
Ownership and transfer disputes between assignees.
Revocation challenges against divisional patents.
Infringement cases, where divisional claims overlap with other patents.
Important Cases on Divisional Patent Applications in India
1. Ferid Allani v. Union of India & Ors (2018) – Delhi High Court
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts: Ferid Allani filed multiple divisional applications from a single parent application for biomedical devices. The Patent Office rejected some divisionals, citing insufficient disclosure in the parent.
Issue: Can a divisional application claim inventions not fully disclosed in the parent?
Decision: Court upheld rejection of divisional applications beyond the original disclosure.
Reasoning:
Divisional must strictly derive from the parent application.
Section 16(1) limits divisionals to inventions clearly and distinctly disclosed in the parent.
Impact:
Reinforced the strict disclosure requirement for divisionals.
Applicants must clearly disclose multiple inventions in the parent to support later divisionals.
2. Roche v. Cipla (2013) – Delhi High Court
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts: Roche had a patent for a cancer drug formulation. Cipla challenged a divisional application filed by Roche, alleging it was an evergreening attempt.
Issue: Validity of a divisional application in light of Section 3(d) and prior disclosures.
Decision: Court upheld the divisional patent, but limited its claims to what was disclosed in the parent application.
Reasoning:
Section 3(d) prevents minor modifications from being patented.
Divisional claims must reflect novel and inventive aspects of the parent application.
Impact:
Clarified the interaction of divisional applications with Section 3(d).
Important for pharma companies attempting to expand patent coverage via divisionals.
3. Novartis AG v. Union of India (Divisional Filing Context, 2012)
Court: Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)
Facts: Novartis filed a divisional for improved formulations of Glivec. The IPO rejected it, citing lack of inventive step and inadequate disclosure.
Issue: Can a divisional add patentable subject matter beyond the parent?
Decision: IPAB upheld rejection, emphasizing disclosure limitations.
Reasoning:
Divisional cannot extend scope beyond the parent.
Filing a divisional to bypass prior rejections is not allowed.
Impact:
Strengthened the IPO’s scrutiny on scope creep in divisionals.
4. Wockhardt Ltd. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. (2008)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts: Wockhardt filed divisional applications for novel drug delivery formulations after the parent application faced objections. Natco alleged invalid claims and challenged the divisionals.
Issue: Are divisionals valid if claims overlap with the parent or prior art?
Decision: HC upheld Wockhardt’s divisional patents, restricting claims to distinct inventions.
Reasoning:
Divisionals must claim distinct and separate inventions from parent.
Overlapping claims without inventive distinction are invalid.
Impact:
Clarified claim construction for divisionals in litigation.
Encouraged companies to strategically file multiple divisionals without overlapping claims.
5. Bayer Corp. v. Cipla Ltd. (2010)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts: Bayer filed a divisional patent for a beta-lactam antibiotic production process. Cipla challenged, arguing that the divisional was filed to extend patent term and block generics.
Issue: Abuse of divisional filings and patent term extension.
Decision: Court recognized the divisional patent, rejecting claims of abuse.
Reasoning:
Filing a divisional is legal as long as it derives from the parent.
Abuse must be proven, not presumed.
Impact:
Affirmed that divisionals are legally valid tools for patent protection if disclosure requirements are met.
6. Syngenta Seeds India Pvt. Ltd. v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (2015)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts: Syngenta filed divisional applications for Bt cotton technology to cover multiple traits. Nuziveedu challenged, alleging overlap with parent patent and non-compliance with PVPA.
Issue: Whether divisionals covering related biotech traits are valid.
Decision: Court upheld the divisional patents, restricting scope to distinct traits.
Reasoning:
Divisionals must split inventions clearly, cannot claim unrelated subject matter.
Compliance with other regulatory frameworks (like PVPA) is necessary.
Impact:
Set a precedent for biotech divisionals in seed and agriculture patents.
Key Lessons from Divisional Patent Disputes in India
Disclosure is critical: Divisionals cannot claim inventions not disclosed in the parent.
Distinct inventions only: Overlapping or minor modifications are subject to rejection.
No abuse for evergreening: Filing a divisional to extend patent term is scrutinized but not automatically invalid.
Strategic use in pharma & biotech: Divisionals allow coverage for multiple innovations from a single parent application.
Interaction with other laws: Pharma divisionals must comply with Section 3(d); agricultural biotech divisionals must consider PVPA.
I can also make a comprehensive table summarizing 10+ divisional patent di
RELATED Blog
comments