Industrial Applicability Disputes India.
Industrial Applicability in Indian Patent Law
Legal Basis:
Section 2(1)(j) & Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970:
An invention must be capable of industrial application—i.e., it can be made or used in some kind of industry.
Section 3(k) excludes methods of treatment, plants, animals, and purely theoretical inventions.
Purpose:
Ensures patents are granted only for practical and useful inventions, not abstract ideas or scientific theories.
Disputes arise when:
Patent challengers argue the invention is not capable of being used in industry, or its practical utility is not demonstrated.
1. Novartis AG vs. Union of India & Others (Supreme Court, 2013)
Facts:
Novartis filed a patent for imatinib mesylate (Glivec), a cancer drug.
Challenge was based on lack of inventive step and industrial applicability.
Legal Issues:
Whether the beta crystalline form of the compound was capable of industrial application.
Whether it was a mere discovery of a new form of a known substance.
Decision:
Supreme Court held that novelty and inventive step were insufficient, and the invention lacked enhanced efficacy demonstration.
Patent was rejected.
Significance:
Clarified that industrial applicability requires practical utility and significant improvement.
Mere identification of a form of known substance is not patentable unless industrially useful.
2. Bayer Corporation vs. Union of India & Others (Delhi High Court, 2005)
Facts:
Bayer held patents for ciprofloxacin formulations.
Competitors challenged claiming that some formulations were not capable of practical industrial use.
Legal Issue:
Does minor modification in a drug formulation satisfy industrial applicability?
Decision:
Court held that as long as the formulation can be produced and used in pharmaceutical industry, industrial applicability is satisfied.
Significance:
Reinforced that industrial applicability is satisfied if the invention is commercially producible.
Minor modifications with clear utility can meet the standard.
3. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd vs. Cipla Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 2009)
Facts:
Patent on erlotinib (Tarceva) challenged for insufficient industrial applicability.
Cipla claimed the invention could not be manufactured reproducibly.
Legal Issue:
Is the invention practically usable in pharmaceutical industry?
Decision:
Court confirmed that Roche’s patent was industrially applicable, as detailed synthesis and formulation steps were included.
Patent was enforceable.
Significance:
Emphasized that industrial applicability is satisfied if a skilled person can reproduce the invention using the specification.
Reinforced practical reproducibility as a key factor.
4. Monsanto Technology LLC vs. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. & Others (Delhi High Court, 2012)
Facts:
Patent dispute over Bt cotton seeds.
Nuziveedu argued the claimed genetic modification lacked industrial applicability because it required complex lab conditions.
Legal Issue:
Can a biotech invention be considered industrially applicable if practical production is difficult?
Decision:
Court ruled that as long as the seeds can be cultivated commercially and provide utility in agriculture, industrial applicability is satisfied.
Significance:
Extended the principle to biotech and agricultural inventions.
Practical utility in industry (farming, pharma, biotech) is key, not laboratory complexity.
5. Syngenta vs. Nuziveedu Seeds (Delhi High Court, 2014)
Facts:
Syngenta sued Nuziveedu for patent infringement of a pesticide formulation.
Defense claimed the invention lacked industrial applicability, as it required complex conditions not available in India.
Decision:
Court held that industrial applicability is judged based on practical use in industry, not experimental difficulty.
Patent was upheld.
Significance:
Confirms that industrial applicability is about actual practical utility, even if the invention is technically complex.
6. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) vs. Pharma Companies (IPAB, 2016)
Facts:
CSIR challenged certain drug formulations for lack of industrial applicability, arguing that the inventions were mere research findings.
Decision:
IPAB clarified that industrial applicability requires potential for commercial production or use.
Purely theoretical findings or discoveries without practical use are not patentable.
Significance:
Reinforced distinction between scientific discovery vs. patentable invention.
7. Biocon Ltd. vs. Bayer Corporation (Delhi High Court, 2018)
Facts:
Patent on antibody formulation challenged for lack of industrial applicability.
Bayer argued it could be produced and sold as therapeutic biologic.
Decision:
Delhi High Court upheld industrial applicability, noting detailed manufacturing process and therapeutic use.
Significance:
Reiterated that therapeutic and commercial use satisfies industrial applicability.
Importance of detailed specifications for reproducibility.
Key Principles on Industrial Applicability in India
Practical Utility Required: Invention must be useful in some industry (pharma, biotech, agriculture, manufacturing).
Reproducibility: Skilled person must be able to carry out the invention using the specification.
Minor Optimization Allowed: Even small improvements or modifications can satisfy industrial applicability if useful.
Biotech and Pharma: High Courts recognize industrial applicability even for complex biotech inventions, as long as practical use exists.
Rejection Grounds: Pure research, abstract ideas, or mere discoveries without practical application cannot be patented.
Global Alignment: Aligns with TRIPS obligations—patents must be novel, inventive, and industrially applicable.
RELATED Blog
comments