{"id":26657,"date":"2026-07-05T07:23:13","date_gmt":"2026-07-05T07:23:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=26657"},"modified":"2026-07-05T07:25:51","modified_gmt":"2026-07-05T07:25:51","slug":"shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/","title":{"rendered":"Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents: Delhi High Court on Traditional Knowledge, Herbal Patents &amp; Section 3(p)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision in <strong>Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs<\/strong> is a significant addition to Indian patent jurisprudence dealing with traditional knowledge-based inventions. The judgement addresses important questions regarding the patentability of herbal formulations, the scope of inventive step in traditional medicine, the evidentiary value of post-filing experimental data, and the relationship between the Patents Act, 1970, and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Factual_and_Procedural_Background\" >Factual and Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Timeline_of_Events\" >Timeline of Events<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Dispute_Before_the_Court\" >Dispute Before the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Appellants_Contentions\" >Appellant&#8217;s Contentions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Respondents_Contentions\" >Respondent&#8217;s Contentions<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Summary_of_the_Core_Dispute\" >Summary of the Core Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Analysis_of_the_Inventors_Affidavit\" >Analysis of the Inventor&#8217;s Affidavit<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Post-Filing_Evidence_and_Technical_Effect\" >Post-Filing Evidence and Technical Effect<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Court_Findings_on_Synergy_and_Examples\" >Court Findings on Synergy and Examples<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Prior_Art_Analysis\" >Prior Art Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Application_of_Section_3p_of_the_Patents_Act\" >Application of Section 3(p) of the Patents Act<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Disclosure_Requirements_Under_Section_10\" >Disclosure Requirements Under Section 10<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Summary_of_the_Final_Ruling\" >Summary of the Final Ruling<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Point_of_Law_Settled\" >Point of Law Settled<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Key_Legal_Principles_at_a_Glance\" >Key Legal Principles at a Glance<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling is particularly relevant for the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Innovators<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Pharmaceutical companies<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Herbal medicine manufacturers<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Patent professionals<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Researchers seeking patent protection for formulations derived from traditional knowledge<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement reinforces the principle that merely combining known traditional ingredients and optimising their proportions does not automatically qualify for patent protection unless genuine technical advancement and inventive ingenuity are demonstrated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_and_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual and Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant, <strong>Shaafi Naturcure LLP<\/strong>, filed Indian Patent Application No. <strong>201911048481<\/strong> on <strong>27 November 2019<\/strong> for an invention titled <strong>\u201cA Herbal Powder Composition for the Treatment of Asthma&#8221;.<\/strong> The claimed invention related to a herbal formulation comprising six ingredients, namely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Tephrosia Purpurea<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Cuscuta Reflexa<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Morinda Citrifolia<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Terminalia Arjuna<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Piper Longum<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Piper Nigrum<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Following examination, a first examination report was issued on <strong>1 January 2020<\/strong> raising objections under Sections 2(1)(j), 3(p), 10(4)(a), and 10(4)(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The applicant submitted a response along with amended claims and subsequently participated in a hearing before the Patent Office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The patent controller eventually rejected the application on <strong>16 September 2020<\/strong>. The controller concluded that the claimed invention:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Lacked novelty.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Lacked inventive step.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Represented an aggregation of traditional knowledge.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Failed to sufficiently disclose the invention and its best method of performance.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Aggrieved by the refusal, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Delhi High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">During the appellate proceedings, the appellant relied extensively on an inventor&#8217;s affidavit and supporting materials, claiming that the composition:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Exhibited synergistic effects.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Treated five categories of asthma.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Had been tested on approximately 300 individuals with positive results.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent defended the rejection order and argued that the additional material could not cure deficiencies in the original specification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-timeline-of-events\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Timeline_of_Events\"><\/span>Timeline of Events<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Date<\/th><th>Event<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>27 November 2019<\/td><td>Indian Patent Application No. 201911048481 filed.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>1 January 2020<\/td><td>The first examination report was issued, raising objections under the Patents Act, 1970.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>16 September 2020<\/td><td>The patent controller rejected the application.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Thereafter<\/td><td>Appeal filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-dispute-before-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_the_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The principal dispute before the Court concerned whether the claimed herbal composition satisfied the requirements of patentability under Indian law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-appellant-s-contentions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appellants_Contentions\"><\/span>Appellant&#8217;s Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant contended that the invention involved a unique selection of six herbs from a large pool of medicinal plants traditionally associated with respiratory disorders. According to the appellant, the inventive contribution lay in identifying specific proportions of the ingredients which allegedly produced superior therapeutic results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant further argued that the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The invention demonstrated unexpected synergy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Patent Controller failed to properly appreciate the inventor&#8217;s affidavit and supporting data.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Approval obtained from the National Biodiversity Authority under the Biological Diversity Act supported the patentability of the invention.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-respondent-s-contentions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondents_Contentions\"><\/span>Respondent&#8217;s Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent argued that each of the six ingredients was already known in traditional medicine for treatment of asthma or related respiratory conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent further contended the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The claimed invention merely combined known traditional ingredients.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The formulation represented routine experimentation rather than genuine innovation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The affidavit sought to introduce entirely new technical features and claims that were absent from the original specification and therefore could not be considered.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-summary-of-the-core-dispute\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Summary_of_the_Core_Dispute\"><\/span>Summary of the Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Appellant&#8217;s Position<\/th><th>Respondent&#8217;s Position<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Selection of Ingredients<\/td><td>Unique selection of six herbs.<\/td><td>Ingredients already known in traditional medicine.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Inventive Step<\/td><td>Specific proportions created superior therapeutic results.<\/td><td>Only routine experimentation without innovation.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Synergistic Effect<\/td><td>Unexpected synergy demonstrated.<\/td><td>Not supported by the original specification.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Inventor&#8217;s Affidavit<\/td><td>Should be considered as supporting evidence.<\/td><td>Cannot cure deficiencies in the original patent specification.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Biological Diversity Act Approval<\/td><td>Supports patentability.<\/td><td>Does not establish patentability under the Patents Act.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court first examined the argument based on the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The appellant argued that once approval had been obtained from the National Biodiversity Authority, the objection under Section 3(p) of the Patents Act should no longer survive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court rejected this contention. It held that the Biological Diversity Act and the Patents Act operate in distinct spheres. The Biological Diversity Act primarily regulates access to biological resources, conservation of biodiversity, and equitable sharing of benefits arising from utilisation of biological resources. It does not authorise the National Biodiversity Authority to assess patentability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court observed that approval under the Biological Diversity Act is merely a regulatory requirement and has no bearing on whether an invention satisfies the patentability standards under the Patents Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-analysis-of-the-inventor-s-affidavit\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Analysis_of_the_Inventors_Affidavit\"><\/span>Analysis of the Inventor&#8217;s Affidavit<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court then examined the inventor&#8217;s affidavit. The affidavit asserted that the invention could cure five categories of asthma and contained extensive data regarding efficacy and side effects. However, the Court found that these claims were absent from the complete specification originally filed before the Patent Office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court noted that the specification did not disclose any classification of asthma into five categories, nor did it contain supporting evidence for such classification. Consequently, these assertions could not be considered during patent examination or appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also found significant inconsistencies between the specification and the affidavit. While the affidavit claimed that altering ingredient ratios could lead to adverse side effects, the original specification contained no such disclosure. More importantly, one formulation disclosed in the affidavit fell within the claimed ranges yet allegedly produced undesirable effects, undermining the applicant&#8217;s own assertions regarding efficacy and synergy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-post-filing-evidence-and-technical-effect\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Post-Filing_Evidence_and_Technical_Effect\"><\/span>Post-Filing Evidence and Technical Effect<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court relied extensively on <em>AstraZeneca AB &amp; Anr. v. Alkem Laboratories Limited, CS (COMM) 410\/2020, decided on 02.11.2020<\/em>, which in turn referred to <em>Generics (UK) Ltd. v. Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd., (2017) EWHC 2629 <\/em>(Pat.). The Court reiterated the principle that post-filing evidence may only confirm a technical effect already disclosed or reasonably inferable from the specification. Such evidence cannot be used to establish a technical effect for the first time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Applying this principle, the Court held that the affidavit attempted to introduce new technical effects and supporting data that were not disclosed in the original specification and therefore could not be relied upon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-court-findings-on-synergy-and-examples\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Court_Findings_on_Synergy_and_Examples\"><\/span>Court Findings on Synergy and Examples<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court further scrutinised the examples contained in the specification itself. It found that certain examples demonstrated significant relief from asthma even when only four ingredients were used. This directly contradicted the applicant&#8217;s claim that the specific six-ingredient combination produced the alleged synergistic effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As a result, the Court concluded that the alleged synergy was not established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-prior-art-analysis\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Prior_Art_Analysis\"><\/span>Prior Art Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also analysed the prior art documents cited by the Patent Office. These references demonstrated that each of the six herbal ingredients had already been traditionally used for asthma, bronchitis, cough, or related respiratory ailments. The Court therefore concluded that the claimed formulation did not demonstrate any meaningful technical advancement over the existing state of knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-application-of-section-3-p-of-the-patents-act\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Application_of_Section_3p_of_the_Patents_Act\"><\/span>Application of Section 3(p) of the Patents Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court then considered Section 3(p) of the Patents Act, which excludes inventions that are essentially traditional knowledge or an aggregation of known properties of traditionally known components.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Particular reliance was placed on the <em>Guidelines for Processing Patent Applications Relating to Traditional Knowledge and Biological Material, 2012<\/em>. The Court referred to Guiding Principle 2, which treats combinations of plants already known for treatment of the same disease as obvious combinations. The Court also relied on Guiding Principle 4, which states that discovering optimum ranges of traditionally known ingredients through routine experimentation is not inventive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Applying these principles, the Court held that the invention was essentially a combination of herbs already known for treating asthma and therefore fell squarely within the exclusion under Section 3(p).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-disclosure-requirements-under-section-10\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclosure_Requirements_Under_Section_10\"><\/span>Disclosure Requirements Under Section 10<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court further held that the specification failed to fully and particularly describe the invention and failed to disclose the best method of performing it, thereby attracting objections under Sections 10(4)(a) and 10(4)(b).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing Patent Application No. 201911048481.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court concluded that the claimed invention lacked novelty and inventive step under Sections 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. It further held that the invention constituted an aggregation of traditionally known ingredients and was therefore barred by Section 3(p).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also held that the complete specification failed to satisfy the disclosure requirements under Sections 10(4)(a) and 10(4)(b).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Consequently, the refusal order was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-summary-of-the-final-ruling\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Summary_of_the_Final_Ruling\"><\/span>Summary of the Final Ruling<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Court&#8217;s Finding<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Biological Diversity Act Approval<\/td><td>Does not establish patentability under the Patents Act.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Novelty<\/td><td>Not established.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Inventive Step<\/td><td>Not established.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 3(p)<\/td><td>The invention is held to be an aggregation of traditionally known ingredients.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 10(4)(a) &amp; 10(4) (b)<\/td><td>Complete specification failed to meet disclosure requirements.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Appeal<\/td><td>Dismissed.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-point-of-law-settled\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement reinforces several important principles of Indian patent law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>First, approval obtained under the Biological Diversity Act does not establish patentability and cannot override objections under the Patents Act.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Second, post-filing experimental data may only corroborate a technical effect already disclosed in the patent specification. Such evidence cannot be used to introduce new technical features or establish an inventive step for the first time.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Third, combining multiple traditionally known ingredients already recognised for the treatment of the same disease is ordinarily regarded as an obvious combination and may fall within the exclusion under Section 3(p).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Fourth, routine optimisation of proportions or ranges of known traditional ingredients does not constitute an inventive step unless genuine technical advancement or unexpected results are clearly demonstrated.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Finally, patent specifications must independently disclose the invention, its technical contribution, and the best method of performing it. Deficiencies in disclosure cannot be cured through later affidavits or supplementary evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-legal-principles-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles_at_a_Glance\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles at a Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Legal Principle<\/th><th>Court&#8217;s Position<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Biological Diversity Act Approval<\/td><td>Regulatory approval only; does not determine patentability.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Post-Filing Evidence<\/td><td>Can only support an already disclosed technical effect.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Traditional Knowledge<\/td><td>Known herbal combinations for the same disease may be barred under Section 3(p).<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Routine Optimization<\/td><td>Not considered an inventive step without unexpected technical advancement.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Patent Specification<\/td><td>Must independently disclose the invention and best method of performance.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Title of the Case<\/th><td><strong>Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Judgment\/Order<\/th><td>22.06.2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 109\/2022<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><td>2026:DHC:5157<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Court<\/th><td>Delhi High Court<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of the Honourable Judge<\/th><td>Tushar Rao Gedela<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,<\/strong> IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi.<br><br><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong>\u00a0Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in the judgement, and the same are for illustrative purposes only. Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<br><br>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/balancing-biodiversity-compliance-and-patent-prosecution\/\">Balancing Biodiversity Compliance and Patent Prosecution<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/insufficiency-of-disclosure-in-patent-specification-and-rejection-of-patent-appeal\/\">Insufficiency of Disclosure in Patent Specification and Rejection of Patent Appeal<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/descriptiveness-and-trademark-rights\/\">Descriptiveness and Trademark Rights<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/are-business-model-patentable-in-india\/\">Are business model patentable in India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/impact-of-artificial-intelligence-on-intellectual-property-rights\/\">Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property Rights<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The decision in Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs is a significant addition to Indian patent jurisprudence dealing with traditional knowledge-based inventions. The judgement addresses important questions regarding the patentability of herbal formulations, the scope of inventive step in traditional medicine, the evidentiary value of post-filing experimental data, and the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5873],"tags":[5969],"class_list":["post-26657","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-trademark-law","tag-trademark-laws"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.9 (Yoast SEO v27.9) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents: Delhi High Court on Traditional Knowledge, Herbal Patents &amp; Section 3(p) - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court explains herbal patent law, Section 3(p), inventive step, traditional knowledge and patentability in Shaafi Naturcure case.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents: Delhi High Court on Traditional Knowledge, Herbal Patents &amp; Section 3(p)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court explains herbal patent law, Section 3(p), inventive step, traditional knowledge and patentability in Shaafi Naturcure case.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-05T07:23:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-05T07:25:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents: Delhi High Court on Traditional Knowledge, Herbal Patents &amp; Section 3(p)\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-05T07:23:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-05T07:25:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1870,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\\\/\",\"name\":\"Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents: Delhi High Court on Traditional Knowledge, Herbal Patents &amp; Section 3(p) - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-05T07:23:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-05T07:25:51+00:00\",\"description\":\"Delhi High Court explains herbal patent law, Section 3(p), inventive step, traditional knowledge and patentability in Shaafi Naturcure case.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trademark Laws > Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents: Delhi High Court on Traditional Knowledge, Herbal Patents & Section 3(p)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents: Delhi High Court on Traditional Knowledge, Herbal Patents &amp; Section 3(p) - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Delhi High Court explains herbal patent law, Section 3(p), inventive step, traditional knowledge and patentability in Shaafi Naturcure case.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents: Delhi High Court on Traditional Knowledge, Herbal Patents &amp; Section 3(p)","og_description":"Delhi High Court explains herbal patent law, Section 3(p), inventive step, traditional knowledge and patentability in Shaafi Naturcure case.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-07-05T07:23:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-05T07:25:51+00:00","author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents: Delhi High Court on Traditional Knowledge, Herbal Patents &amp; Section 3(p)","datePublished":"2026-07-05T07:23:13+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-05T07:25:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/"},"wordCount":1870,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Trademark Laws"],"articleSection":["Trademark Laws"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/","name":"Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents: Delhi High Court on Traditional Knowledge, Herbal Patents &amp; Section 3(p) - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-05T07:23:13+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-05T07:25:51+00:00","description":"Delhi High Court explains herbal patent law, Section 3(p), inventive step, traditional knowledge and patentability in Shaafi Naturcure case.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trademark Laws > Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents: Delhi High Court on Traditional Knowledge, Herbal Patents & Section 3(p)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26657","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26657"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26657\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27324,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26657\/revisions\/27324"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26657"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26657"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26657"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}