Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||What’s ‘New’? - Isn’t it Obvious?|
|Authors:||Ohly, D Christopher|
|Keywords:||Therapeutic efficacy;Novel;Patentable subject matter;Newness;Novelty;Inventive step|
|Abstract:||A new approach to Section 3(d) of Indian patent law using common principles of statutory construction suggests that Section 3(d) should be viewed as a proviso to the general definition of an invention in the Indian Patents Act. As such Section 3(d) should be strictly construed. The term ‘mere discovery’ should encompass only natural things merely observed and not non-natural substances that result from human endeavour. The term ‘efficacy’ used as an exception to the proviso should be broadly construed to include more than ‘therapeutic efficacy’. Construed in this traditional manner Section 3(d) may well comply with TRIPS.|
|Appears in Collections:||JIPR Vol.13(5) [September 2008]|
Items in NOPR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.