Patent law in India is primarily governed by the Patents Act, 1970, along with the Patents Rules, 2003. The law provides inventors with exclusive rights over new and useful inventions, subject to certain legal requirements. To obtain a patent, an invention generally must be novel, involve an inventive step, and be capable of industrial application. The patent system is administered by the Indian Patent Office, which examines applications and grants patents when the statutory requirements are satisfied.

A patent in India generally provides the patent holder with the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or importing the patented invention without authorization. The standard term of a patent is 20 years from the date of filing, subject to payment of the required renewal fees. Indian patent law also contains important limitations and exceptions, including provisions concerning compulsory licensing and inventions that are excluded from patentability. These provisions aim to balance the interests of inventors with broader public interests, including access to essential goods and technological development.

Indian patent law has been shaped significantly by judicial decisions. One of the most important cases is Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013), in which the Supreme Court of India considered whether Novartis could obtain a patent for the beta-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate, a cancer medicine. The Court interpreted Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, and held that the claimed form did not satisfy the required standard of enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The decision is particularly important because it strengthened the role of Section 3(d) in preventing patents on new forms of known substances where the statutory requirements are not met.

Another significant decision is Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company Ltd. (2009), concerning patent infringement and interim injunctions in the automobile industry. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for courts to carefully consider the validity of a patent when deciding whether to grant interim relief in infringement proceedings. The case illustrates the balance Indian courts must maintain between protecting patent rights and preventing potentially unjustified restraints on competition. Other important cases, including F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., have also contributed to Indian jurisprudence on pharmaceutical patents, patent validity, infringement, and the public-interest considerations relevant to granting injunctions.

Reach out to us, if you need assistance with:

• Drafting patent applications for filing with Patent Office (e.g., India Patent Office (IPO), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), European Patent Office (EPO), etc.)

• Filing patent applications with India Patent Office (e.g., provisional application, complete application, convention patent application, PCT International application or national phase application), USPTO, EPO, etc.

• Prosecuting patent applications at India Patent Office

• Conducting Patent Searches -

  • Prior art search

  • Freedom-to-operate search

  • Validity/Invalidity search

  • Infringement analysis search

  • Patent landscape search

• Patent renewals

• Filing Statements regarding working of a patented invention in India (Form 27)

• Statement and undertaking under Section 8 (Form 3)

• Obtaining Foreign Filing permission from India Patent Office (Section 39 of Patents Act, 1970)

• Determining the patentability of your idea?

• Preparing claim charts or Evidence of Use (EoU) charts

• Writing invention disclosures?

• Addressing your queries related to patents - What are patentable inventions? How to file a patent application? Where to file foreign patent applications? etc.

  ... and other patent-related matters with India Patent Office.