Arctic
Invent
Case Registry
Dashboard
Case Explorer
Back to Explorer
Update Case Entry
Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.
Case Lawsuit Title
*
Case / Trial ID Number
Jurisdiction Code
*
us
in
upc
eu
Category
*
Patent
Trademark
Copyright
Design
Filing Date
Decision Verdict Date
Court / Tribunal
Bench / Panel Judges
Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)
Elanco Us Inc
Respondent / Defendant
Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dispute Summary
The Madras High Court set aside an order rejecting a patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition, finding the rejection to be arbitrary. The court directed a re-consideration of the application by a different officer within four months. The application relates to a treatment for chronic inappetence and chronic weight loss in companion animals. The court's decision highlights the importance of careful consideration of patent applications and the need for reasoned decisions.
Outcome / Ruling
plaintiff_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 2 , Cited by 0 ] Madras High Court Elanco Us Inc vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And ... on 14 July, 2026 CMA(PT) No. 37 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU CMA(PT) No. 37 of 2024 Elanco Us Inc 2500 Innovation Way, Greenfiled, Indiana 46140, United states of America, Amended vide court order dated15/04/2025 made in CMP No.9197 of 2025 in CMA (PT) No.37 of 2024 ..Petitioner(s) Vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs Government of India, Patent Office Intellectual Property rights Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032 ..Respondent(s) Appeal filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the order of the Controller of Patents and Designs, praying to call for the records of the Respondent culminating in the impugned order dated 20 th May 2024, rejecting the Grant of Patent and set aside the same and consequently direct Grant of the Patent in respect of the Appellant’s Application No.201948050412. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Rahul Balaji For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Subramanian Additional Central Government Standing Counsel (ACGSC) __________ Page1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA(PT) No. 37 of 2024 JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed to call for the records of the Respondent culminating in the impugned order dated 20th May 2024, rejecting the Grant of Patent and set aside the same and consequently to direct Grant of the Patent in respect of the Appellant’s Application No.201948050412. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant’s claim for invention of an oral pharmaceutical composition for treating chronic inappetence and chronic weight loss in a companion animal had been rejected. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the reason for rejection was the lack of inventive step required under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1920 on the strength of the prior art D1. The claims made in the original application had been set out in detail in the order and the reply to the objections raised to the First Examination Report had also been extracted. Under the order, the respondent had indicated that the invention under the patent is substantially the same as disclosed in the prior art under D1. In the analysis, a finding had been given that the invention under the application under consideration differs from the closest prior art document under D1, as the prior do not provide any safety data on the maximum dose of the drug for continued use. It had also been further recorded that the drug sought to be patented has no adverse clinical side effects on the companion __________ Page2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA(PT) No. 37 of 2024 animals. 4. In that regard, this Court is of the view that, having given such a reasoning, the rejection simpliciter that there is no inventive step is smacked by arbitrariness. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 20.05.2024 stands set aside on the following terms: (a) In order to preclude the possibility of pre determination, an officer other than the officer who issued the impugned order shall undertake re-consideration. (b) After providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant, a reasoned decision shall be issued within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (c) For the avoidance of doubt, it is made clear that no observation has been made on the merits of the patent application.” 6. On the above terms, this Appeal is disposed of. No costs. 14-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No kak __________ Page3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA(PT) No. 37 of 2024 To The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs Government of India, Patent Office Intellectual Property rights Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. __________ Page4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA(PT) No. 37 of 2024 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. kak CMA(PT) No. 37 of 2024 14-07-2026 __________ Page5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cancel
Update Case