Since the provided case title and information are insufficient to create a case summary, I will provide a hypothetical example based on a common type of patent dispute in India.

Hypothetical Case Summary: Novartis AG v. Union of India & Ors. (Regarding Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970)

Short Summary This case concerns the patentability of a drug under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, which prohibits the patenting of new forms of a known substance unless they demonstrate a significant enhancement in efficacy. The Supreme Court ultimately held that Novartis's drug, Gleevec (imatinib mesylate), did not meet the criteria for patentability under Section 3(d) because the claimed beta crystalline form did not demonstrate a significant improvement in therapeutic efficacy over the existing form.

Facts Novartis sought a patent in India for the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate, sold under the brand name Gleevec, used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). The Indian Patent Office rejected the application, citing Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. Novartis appealed to the Madras High Court, which upheld the rejection. Novartis then appealed to the Supreme Court. The existing form of imatinib mesylate was already known.

Issues The primary legal issue was whether the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate met the requirements of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, specifically whether it demonstrated a significant enhancement in efficacy compared to the known form.

Petitioner's Arguments (Novartis) Novartis argued that the beta crystalline form exhibited improved properties, including enhanced flow properties, better thermodynamic stability, and reduced hygroscopicity, which indirectly led to improved efficacy. They contended that these improvements were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 3(d).

Respondent's Arguments (Union of India & Ors.) The respondents argued that Novartis failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in therapeutic efficacy, which is the key requirement under Section 3(d). They contended that the claimed improvements were merely incremental and did not result in a substantial benefit to patients. They also emphasized the importance of preventing evergreening of patents.

Court's Reasoning The Supreme Court held that Section 3(d) aims to prevent the patenting of minor modifications of existing substances unless there is a significant improvement in therapeutic efficacy. The Court found that Novartis had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a significant improvement in therapeutic efficacy of the beta crystalline form compared to the known form. The Court emphasized that the focus of Section 3(d) is on therapeutic efficacy, not just other properties.

Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed Novartis's appeal, upholding the rejection of the patent application. The Court ruled that the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate did not meet the requirements of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, as it did not demonstrate a significant enhancement in therapeutic efficacy.