The Centre has strongly defended the validity of section 3(d) of the Patents Act 1970 (in its present form) against Swiss-based Novartis which earlier challenged the constitutional validity of section 3(d). Additional Solicitor-General --- V.T. Gopalan at the Madras High Court told that the amended section 3(d) of the Patents Act and explanation provided therewith were valid and also contended that Section 3(d) along with explanations only prohibited camouflage inventions for the purpose of continuing in the patent regime, which invention had no enhanced efficacy. Mr. Gopalan said that (1) an invention with a mere change of form without any enhanced efficacy could not be granted patent and if patent was granted, it would be arbitrary and (2) the amended provision along with the explanation fully complied with Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS. He further added that there were sufficient guidelines under the Statement of objects and reasons and other provisions of the legislation for exercise of power under the amended section. Hence, as such the amendment was not arbitrary. He also added that no mala fides could be attributed to Parliament. Submitting that discrimination meant manifestly arbitrary, he said there was nothing in the provision which could be said to be arbitrary. On the other hand, the amendment conformed to the people’s aspirations. Mr. Gopalan also state that the amendment did not provide any ‘unguided power’ to patent controllers to reject applications for patents on the ground that they were not new inventions. A Division Bench, comprising Justice R. Balasubramanian and Justice Prabha Sridevan, is hearing petition filed by Novartis challenging the rejection of its application for patenting beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate under the Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.