In Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court interpreted 'efficacy' in Section 3(d) Patents Act 1970 to mean:
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: A.
1. In Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court denied Novartis a patent for the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate (Glivec).
2. The Court interpreted 'efficacy' in Section 3(d) to mean 'THERAPEUTIC EFFICACY' for pharmaceutical substances — measurable medical benefit (improved bioavailability alone was held NOT sufficient to demonstrate enhanced therapeutic efficacy).
3. The Court emphasised that Section 3(d) aimed to prevent EVERGREENING of patents.
4. The decision strengthened India's generic pharma industry's position.
5. Hence option B is correct.
_Source: Patents Act 1970 / Copyright Act 1957 / Trade Marks Act 1999 (Bare Acts, IPIndia portal + Copyright Office) — Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1_
Related questions
Section 31C Copyright Act 1957 (inserted 2012) is a STATUTORY LICENCE for COVER VERSIONS oSection 47 Trade Marks Act 1999 allows REMOVAL OF A TRADE MARK FROM REGISTER for NON-USE. In INDIAN COMPUTER NETWORK STATE (Microsoft Corp v Mr Yogesh Papat & Anr, 2005 PTC 245 (DeSection 70 Copyright Act 1957 deals with DELIVERY OF INFRINGING COPIES to the copyright owSection 159 Trade Marks Act 1999 enables the Central Government to issue NOTIFICATION DESISection 47 Patents Act 1970 (CONDITIONS OF GRANT) allows USE for purposes of:Section 14(b) Copyright Act 1957 confers on the owner of copyright in a COMPUTER PROGRAMMESection 31D Copyright Act 1957 (inserted 2012) is a STATUTORY LICENCE for BROADCASTING of