The Delhi High Court, in the case of Hanmi Pharm. Co. Ltd. vs The Controller General of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 464/2022; decision dated May 11, 2026], set aside the rejection of patent application number 6101/DELNP/2014 after finding that the Controller failed to consider a substantial group of claims.

The application was refused on the grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3(d).

Hanmi’s amended application contained 22 claims concerning a compound “thieno[3,2-d]pyrimidine derivative of formula (I)” or its pharmaceutically acceptable salts, and a method for preparing a thieno[3,2-d]pyrimidine compound of Formula (I) or its pharmaceutically acceptable salt. Claims 1-13 covered the product and Claims 14-22 were process claims. The impugned order, however, assessed only the product claims against the cited prior art references. During the appeal, the counsel for the Controller acknowledged that the process claims had not been dealt with.

The Court held that the omission was fatal. Patent adjudication requires engagement with every category of claims. Since the Controller had not considered the process claims at all, the Court found the refusal order unsustainable and set it aside.

The matter was remanded to the Patent Office for fresh consideration on merits.