Definition
Exclusive right for invention.
Statutory monopoly over new invention for limited period.
Statutory Definition
Defined in Patents Act, 1970.
Etymology & Origin
From Latin 'patens' (lying open, accessible), the present participle of 'patere' (to lie open). The phrase 'letters patent' meant 'open letters' — a royal grant that was publicly displayed rather than sealed and kept private. In English law, the Crown granted 'letters patent' conferring exclusive rights to inventors as an open, public proclamation. The word 'patent' came to mean the grant of exclusive right to exploit an invention, and the document became known as a 'patent' even when issued by statute rather than by royal grant.
Full Legal Analysis
A patent is a statutory grant of the exclusive right to make, use, offer for sale, sell, or import a patented invention for a limited period (20 years in India from the date of filing), in exchange for full public disclosure of the invention. It is the most powerful form of intellectual property protection — granting a legal monopoly over a specific technological solution. The patent bargain is disclosure in exchange for monopoly: the inventor discloses the technical details of the invention to the public (enabling others to learn from and build on it after expiry), and the State rewards this disclosure with the exclusive right to exploit the invention during the patent term.
For a patent to be validly granted in India under the Patents Act, 1970, the invention must satisfy three substantive requirements: (1) novelty — it must be new and not previously disclosed anywhere in the world; (2) inventive step (non-obviousness) — it must not be obvious to a person skilled in the relevant technical field; and (3) industrial applicability — it must be capable of being made or used in an industry. Certain categories of subject matter are expressly excluded from patentability under Section 3 — including mathematical methods, business methods, software, discoveries of existing substances, and new forms of known substances that do not show enhanced efficacy (the famous Section 3(d)).
Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 is India's most significant and most contested patent provision globally. It excludes from patentability new forms of a known substance (polymorphs, solvates, esters, metabolites, etc.) unless the applicant can demonstrate 'significantly enhanced efficacy' compared to the known substance. This provision was enacted to prevent pharmaceutical companies from extending patent protection over trivial modifications to existing drugs — a practice known as 'evergreening' — at the cost of affordable generic medicines.
The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of Novartis's patent application for the cancer drug Imatinib (Gleevec) in its beta-crystalline form under Section 3(d), holding that the new form did not demonstrate enhanced therapeutic efficacy over the known alpha-crystalline form. The Court interpreted Section 3(d) strictly and held that 'efficacy' in the pharmaceutical context means therapeutic efficacy — clinical effectiveness in treating disease — not merely improved physical or chemical properties such as better flowability, solubility, or stability. This landmark judgment affirmed India's policy of protecting access to affordable medicines through the Patents Act.
Patent infringement — unauthorised use of a patented invention during its term — gives the patentee the right to seek an injunction against the infringer, damages (or account of profits), delivery up of infringing goods, and declaration of infringement. Patent infringement suits in India are filed in the High Court with original civil jurisdiction (Delhi, Bombay, Madras, Calcutta). The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has introduced Commercial Divisions in High Courts for faster disposal of IP disputes.
For advocates in patent matters, the most frequent issues are: (1) validity of the patent — prior art searches and Section 3 exclusions; (2) infringement analysis — claim construction is the critical step, followed by comparison of the claim with the allegedly infringing product or process; (3) invalidity defences — anticipation, obviousness, non-disclosure of prior art (inequitable conduct); and (4) FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) obligations for standard-essential patents. Patent litigation in India has grown significantly in volume and complexity since 2005.
This Term in Indian Statutes
Patents Act, 1970, 1970
"The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant."
Anti-evergreening provision — new forms of known substances are not patentable unless they show enhanced efficacy; protects access to generic medicines
