Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Medilabo's Patent For Neurodegenerative-Disease Drug

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Patent Office order refusing Medilabo RFP's patent application for a pharmaceutical composition used in treating neurodegenerative diseases, holding that the authority rejected the application without examining the amended claims and without explaining how the invention fell within the bar on “methods of treatment” under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. For context, Section 3(i) of the Patents Act excludes the patenting of methods of diagnosis and treatment for human beings and animals.A single bench of Justice Tejas Karia, in a judgment dated November 24, 2025, ruled that the bar under Section 3(i) cannot be applied without first considering the amendments Medilabo made to its claims and examining those amended claims in the context of the complete specification. The application concerns a composition containing rifampicin and resveratrol in specified weight ratios. Although the original specification referred to nasal administration and treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, Medilabo later removed those references in response to objections raised during examination.Medilabo told the Court that, after amendment, the claims described only a product, not a method, and yet the Controller rejected the application on the incorrect assumption that the invention related to treatment. It argued that the Patent Office never evaluated the amended claims at all.Agreeing, the Court reiterated that the scope of an invention is determined solely from the claims, and that examples or the specification's preamble cannot override or narrow the claims. Because the amended claims described only a composition, the Controller was required to assess patentability on that basis.“The submission of the Respondent (Patent Office) that the complete specification discusses the method of treatment, may not be acceptable,” the court heldIt further added, “The learned Controller must decide the patentability of the invention under the Subject Application in the light of the amended claims. The learned Controller has failed to specify in the complete specifications how the boundaries of the claim extend to the 'method of treatment'.”Relying on University of Miami v. Controller of General Patent, the Court added that a mere reference to the word “treatment” in a claim does not automatically attract the prohibition in Section 3(i). The Court also faulted the refusal order for failing to deal with other objections raised in the First Examination Report and hearing notice, contrary to the requirement laid down in Adama Makhteshim Ltd v. Controller of Patents & Designs. Setting aside the refusal order, the court remanded the application for fresh examination and clarified that it had not expressed any view on the merits of patentability.Case Title: Medilabo RFP Inc. v. The Controller Of PatentsCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1599Case Noumber: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2024For Appellant: Advocates Debashish Banerjee, Vaishali Joshi and Ankush VermaFor Respondent: Advocate Nishant Gautam, CGSC with Advocate Prithviraj DeyClick Here To Read/Download Order

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Medilabo's Patent For Neurodegenerative-Disease Drug

Ayushi Shukla

Tags