https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222152 The statutory scheme distinguishes "invention" from patentability, and a claimed product must satisfy novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, while a new form of a known substance must also show enhanced efficacy under section 3(d). On the materials, Imatinib Mesylate was already disclosed in the prior Zimmermann patent, and the beta crystalline form was only a new form of that known substance. The asserted advantages in flow, stability, hygroscopicity and bioavailability did not amount to enhanced therapeutic efficacy, and no comparison with the immediately preceding substance was shown. Patent protection was therefore refused. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Aug 2017 16:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222152 The statutory scheme distinguishes "invention" from patentability, and a claimed product must satisfy novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, while a new form of a known substance must also show enhanced efficacy under section 3(d). On the materials, Imatinib Mesylate was already disclosed in the prior Zimmermann patent, and the beta crystalline form was only a new form of that known substance. The asserted advantages in flow, stability, hygroscopicity and bioavailability did not amount to enhanced therapeutic efficacy, and no comparison with the immediately preceding substance was shown. Patent protection was therefore refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222152