Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
1. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
2. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
3. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
4. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
5. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
6. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
7. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
8. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
9. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.
Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970
Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
10. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
11. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
12. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
13. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
14. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
15. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
16. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
17. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
18. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
19. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
20. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
21. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.
Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970
Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
22. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
23. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
24. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.
Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970
Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
25. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
26. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
27. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
28. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
29. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
30. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
31. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
32. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
33. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
34. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
35. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
36. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
37. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
38. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
39. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
40. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
41. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
42. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
43. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
44. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
 45. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
46. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
47. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
48. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
49. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
50. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
51. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
52. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
53. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
54. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
55. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
56. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
57. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
58. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
59. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
60. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
61. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
62. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
63. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.
V

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
64. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
65. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
66. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
67. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
68. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
69. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
70. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
71. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
72. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.
V

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
73. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
74. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
75. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.
Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970
Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
76. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
77. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
78. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.
Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970
Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
79. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
80. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
81. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
82. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
83. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
84. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
85. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
86. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
87. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.

Criticisms Against Section-3(D) Of Patents Act, 1970

Having deliberated over the provisions contained under section-3 (d), the other face of the coin is that the
incorporation of section 3 (d) was widely criticized also in the terms that:
88. It does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement
89. The “enhanced efficacy” was not envisaged under Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS
90. It falls beyond the flexibilities in TRIPS since it limits patentability to only “new chemical entities and
excludes “new forms of known substances lacking enhanced efficacy”.