Definition
Law protecting inventions.
Grants exclusive rights to inventors for novel, non-obvious inventions for 20 years.
Statutory Definition
Patents Act, 1970.
Etymology & Origin
From Latin 'littera patens' (open letter — 'patere', to be open), the original form of a royal patent granted as an open letter published so the public knew of the monopoly granted. The Patents Act, 1970 was enacted to encourage innovation by giving inventors a time-limited monopoly in exchange for full public disclosure of the invention — the 'patent bargain.'
Full Legal Analysis
The Patents Act, 1970 is India's primary statute governing the grant, enforcement, and revocation of patents for inventions. A patent grants the patentee the exclusive right to make, use, sell, import, or offer for sale the patented invention in India for a period of 20 years from the filing date. In exchange, the patentee must disclose the invention fully in the patent specification — enabling a person skilled in the relevant field to practice the invention after the patent expires. This 'patent bargain' — monopoly for disclosure — is the foundational policy justification for the patent system.
For an invention to be patentable under the Act, it must satisfy three conditions: (1) novelty — the invention must not be known or used in India, or published anywhere in the world, before the filing date of the patent application; (2) inventive step/non-obviousness — the invention must not be obvious to a person skilled in the relevant field at the date of filing; and (3) industrial application — the invention must be capable of being made or used in an industry. Section 3 of the Act lists inventions that are not patentable — including discoveries of natural phenomena, abstract mathematical theories, methods of treatment of human beings, and (crucially) Section 3(d) — a new form of a known substance that does not result in enhanced efficacy.
The Patents Act's compulsory licensing provisions (Sections 84-92) represent India's commitment to public health access to medicines. The TRIPS Agreement (WTO) specifically permits countries to grant compulsory licences to address national emergencies, public health crises, or for anti-competitive purposes. India's use of compulsory licensing in the pharmaceutical context has been internationally significant — it established that developing countries can use TRIPS flexibilities to ensure access to affordable medicines without violating international trade obligations.
The Supreme Court dismissed Novartis's challenge to Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, upholding the provision's constitutionality and its interpretation by the Patent Office. The Court held that the beta-crystalline form of Gleevec (imatinib mesylate) did not meet the enhanced efficacy threshold of Section 3(d) — the new form showed no improved therapeutic efficacy over the known compound, and therefore could not be patented in India. The judgment was celebrated by public health advocates as preventing evergreening by pharmaceutical multinationals and ensuring affordable access to life-saving cancer medicines for Indian patients.
Patent applications in India are filed before the Indian Patent Office (IPO) — with offices in Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata. The prosecution process involves: (1) filing the application (with provisional or complete specification); (2) publication (18 months after filing); (3) request for examination; (4) examination report and response; (5) pre-grant opposition (by any person); (6) grant; and (7) post-grant opposition (within 12 months of grant, by any person). The IPO's examination timelines have historically been slow — adding to effective patent term erosion.
For advocates in patent matters, the key issues are: (1) claim construction — what does the patent claim actually cover, and does the defendant's product/process fall within those claims? (2) infringement analysis — does the defendant's act constitute making, using, selling, or importing the claimed invention? (3) validity — can the patent be challenged as anticipated by prior art, obvious, or falling within Section 3's non-patentable categories? (4) compulsory licensing — is the patentee working the patent and making the product available at an affordable price? These are specialised areas requiring expertise in both technical and legal analysis.
This Term in Indian Statutes
Patents Act, 1970, 1970
"The following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act — (d) 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."
Evergreening bar — new form of known drug not patentable without enhanced efficacy; upheld in Novartis Gleevec case; compulsory licence available under Section 84 for unaffordable/unavailable drugs
