LANDMARK CASE
Novartis AG v. Union of India
(2013) 6 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · Intellectual property
At a glance
- Citation: (2013) 6 SCC 1
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Intellectual property
- In one line: No. The patent was refused because therapeutic efficacy was not shown to be enhanced.
1 Facts
Novartis sought a patent for a new crystalline form of imatinib (Glivec).
2 Issue
Does the new form show enhanced efficacy under Section 3(d)?
3 What the court decided
No. The patent was refused because therapeutic efficacy was not shown to be enhanced.
4 Why it matters
It upheld India's stand against evergreening.
5 Think about it
How does Section 3(d) balance innovation and access to medicines?
6 Analyse it yourself
Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.
7 More cases on Intellectual property
- Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005) 30 PTC 253 (Del)
- Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001) 5 SCC 73
- Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1
- Indian Performing Right Society v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association (1977) 2 SCC 820
- R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) 4 SCC 118
- Satyam Infoway v. Sifynet Solutions (2004) 6 SCC 145
All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz
← Nipun Saxena v. Union of IndiaOlga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.