https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197958 The court addressed patent revocation and infringement issues under the Patents Act, holding that obviousness requires proof of technical advance and non-obviousness on a balance of probabilities, and rejecting the challenge where the factual chain for obviousness was not established. It also held that section 3(d) was not attracted because the defendant did not prove the patent was merely a new form of a known substance without enhanced efficacy. A disclosure lapse under section 8 was found, but revocation was declined in discretion. On infringement, purposive construction and the Catnic approach led the court to find that the defendant's polymorphic variant was not proved to fall within the claim, so injunction and damages were refused. en-us Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:58:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197958 The court addressed patent revocation and infringement issues under the Patents Act, holding that obviousness requires proof of technical advance and non-obviousness on a balance of probabilities, and rejecting the challenge where the factual chain for obviousness was not established. It also held that section 3(d) was not attracted because the defendant did not prove the patent was merely a new form of a known substance without enhanced efficacy. A disclosure lapse under section 8 was found, but revocation was declined in discretion. On infringement, purposive construction and the Catnic approach led the court to find that the defendant's polymorphic variant was not proved to fall within the claim, so injunction and damages were refused. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197958