In a relief to German drug maker Boehringer Ingelheim International, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has asked the Controller of Patents to reconsider the company’s claim for a patent relating to a new crystal form of Dabigatran compound, used as blood thinner for heart patients.
Allowing the company’s appeal against the Controller of Patents & Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indications which rejected the patent claim, the IPAB ruled that the controller has wronged in certain aspects and asked it to hear the case afresh in another two months.
According to an earlier statement from the company, it was expecting the launch of Pradaxa, the first patented product in India.
The IPAB bench of justice Prabha Sridevan, chairman and D P S Parmar, technical member (patents) said the patent controller erred in considering the information about the ‘invention’ in document as prior art, which was published after the priority of the impugned application. ?This fact alone persuades us to set aside this decision. In the result, we are left with no option but to send this case back for reconsideration by the respondent ( Controller of Patents). The respondent shall not consider the documents as a prior art but decide the matter afresh as per law within 2 months from the receipt of this order. The appellant shall be given the opportunity to present his case again,? the bench said. According to patent jargon, the prior art means all information that has been disclosed to the public in any form about an invention before a given date.
Dabigatran is used to help prevent strokes or serious blood clots in people who have atrial fibrillation – a condition in which the heart beats irregularly, increasing the chance of clots forming in the body, and possibly causing strokes – without heart valve disease.
The controller had in his order on January 12, 2011 refused patent pointing out that the claimed compound is a new form of a known substance with no enhanced therapeutic efficacy. It also said that subject matter does not constitute an invention as the claims lack inventive step in view of its incorporation by the pharma major in International Patent Application and other medical journals worldwide, including in the US.