IP Case Law › Acts & Sections › Patents Act, 1970
Patents Act, 1970
Select a provision to see the judgments in the database that turn on it.
Section 10 (1)Section 10(4) (2)Section 10(5) (2)Section 104 (1)Section 107 (2)Section 107A (1)Section 108 (5)Section 117A (5)Section 15 (4)Section 16 (2)Section 2(1)(j) (7)Section 2(1)(ja) (13)Section 3(b) (1)Section 3(c) (1)Section 3(d) (6)Section 3(e) (1)Section 3(i) (3)Section 3(j) (1)Section 3(k) (7)Section 3(m) (1)Section 48 (8)Section 48(a) (1)Section 57 (1)Section 59 (6)Section 64 (4)Section 64(1)(a) (1)Section 64(1)(e) (2)Section 64(1)(f) (1)Section 8 (1)Section 83 (2)Section 83(e) (1)Section 84 (1)Section 86 (1)Section 87 (1)
Judgments citing this Act
Array Biopharma Inc v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
A combination of distinct and independent active drugs, each with its own chemical identity and mechanism, does not fall under the Section 3(d) bar for derivatives of known substances. Using phrases such as 'for simultaneous, sepa…
Inventive StepMethod of TreatmentPharmaceutical CombinationPrior ArtPatentsBayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
A compulsory licence under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970 may be granted where the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to a patented invention have not been satisfied, the invention is not available at a reason…
Compulsory LicencePublic HealthReasonably Affordable PriceSection 84PatentsBigtec Private Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
An objection that devising nucleotide probes or primers is routine experimentation lacking inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) must engage with evidence of unexpected effects placed on record; and the Section 3(c) exclusion for …
BiotechnologyInventive StepPatent ProsecutionPrior ArtPatentsBoehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. The Controller of Patents & Anr.
A divisional application under Section 16 is maintainable only where the claims of the parent application themselves disclose a plurality of distinct inventions; disclosure of additional inventions solely in the specification, wit…
Claim ConstructionDivisional ApplicationPatent ProsecutionPlurality Of InventionsPatentsCommunication Components Antenna Inc. v. Ace Technologies Corp. & Ors.
In assessing infringement at the interim stage, patent claims are to be given a purposive construction covering the substance of the claimed technical solution, and a defendant's unexplained refusal to disclose technical data pecu…
Adverse InferenceClaim ConstructionInterim InjunctionPatent InfringementPatentsCrystal Crop Protection Limited v. Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors.
Where a complete specification and the patentee's own conduct during prosecution treat a claimed element as necessary to achieve the invention's stated technical effect, that element cannot later be characterised as non-essential …
Claim ConstructionDoctrine Of EquivalentsInterim InjunctionPatent InfringementPatentsDeepak Nitrite Limited v. The Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs
It is wholly impermissible for the Controller, while exercising quasi-judicial powers under Section 15, to rely upon 'common general knowledge' as a self-sufficient ground for refusing a patent application without setting out and …
Common General KnowledgeFood Grade Sodium NitriteFree-FlowingImpurity ProfilePatentsDr. Aloys Wobben & Anr. v. Yogesh Mehra & Ors.
Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 grants alternative, not cumulative, remedies for seeking revocation of a patent: a petition before the Appellate Board, or a counter-claim in an infringement suit. Once a person interested el…
Counter-claimElection of RemediesPatent LitigationPatent RevocationPatentsE.R. Squibb and Sons, LLC & Ors. v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited
In a quia timet action under Sections 48 and 108, a strong prima facie apprehension of imminent infringement, evidenced by the defendant's own regulatory and manufacturing conduct, can justify an interim injunction; and a biosimil…
BiotechnologyInterim InjunctionPatent InfringementPharmaceutical PatentPatentsF. Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited
A credible challenge to patent validity under Section 64(1)(f), showing that the claimed compound is an obvious and predictable structural modification of a compound already disclosed in the patentee's own earlier prior art, can d…
EvergreeningGenus-Species PatentInterim InjunctionInventive StepPatentsF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. & Anr. v. Cipla Ltd.
A patent claim for a chemical compound is not to be narrowed to a specific polymorphic or crystalline form merely because the specification discusses particular polymorphs, where the claim itself is drafted broadly to cover the co…
Claim ConstructionPatent InfringementPharmaceutical PatentPolymorphPatentsFerid Allani v. Union of India & Ors.
Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 excludes only computer programmes per se from patentability, and not inventions implemented through a computer programme which demonstrate a technical effect or technical contribution to the s…
Computer Related InventionsPatentable Subject MatterSection 3(k)Software PatentPatentsFMC Corporation & Ors. v. Natco Pharma Limited
In a quia timet action under Sections 48 and 108 concerning a soon-to-expire patent, where the defendant has raised a substantial, non-frivolous challenge to validity through a pending revocation petition and has already commenced…
Interim InjunctionNoveltyPatent InfringementPrior ArtPatentsIntra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. v. The Controller of Patents
Although the deuterated compound demonstrated approximately 72% higher parent-drug exposure in the blood, the comparative studies showed substantially similar pharmacological activity between the deuterated and non-deuterated comp…
Deuterated CompoundsHeterocycle-fused Gamma-carbolinesParent Drug ExposurePharmacological ActivityPatentsITC Limited v. Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 excludes an invention only where its primary or intended use or commercial exploitation is shown, on identifiable evidence, to be contrary to public order or morality or seriously prejudicial …
FER PrinciplesNatural JusticePatent ProsecutionPublic Order And MoralityPatentsKoninklijke Philips N.V. v. Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr.
A defendant cannot avoid liability for infringing a standard essential patent by pointing to the existence of obligations to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms; once essentiality and infringement are establis…
DamagesFRANDPatent InfringementSection 3(k)PatentsKroll Information Assurance, LLC v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Ors.
A computer-related invention overcomes the exclusion under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 only where it is shown to produce a specific technical effect or advancement in the functioning of the underlying hardware, going bey…
Claim AmendmentComputer Related InventionsSection 3(k)Software PatentPatentsMicrosoft Technology Licensing, LLC v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
An invention is not excluded under Section 3(k) merely because it is implemented as an algorithm on a computer; the determinative question is whether the claimed subject matter demonstrates a technical effect or technical contribu…
Computer Related InventionsPatent ProsecutionSection 3(k)Software PatentPatentsMonsanto Technology LLC & Ors. v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. & Ors.
Revocation of a patent on a counter-claim under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 cannot be decided summarily; it presupposes a full trial in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly where patent exclusion under…
Biotechnology PatentCounter-claimInterim InjunctionPatent EligibilityPatentsNatera Inc. & Anr. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The exclusion of diagnostic methods from patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970 applies without distinction between in vivo and in vitro processes, and covers a method whose complete specification and final clai…
BiotechnologyClaim ConstructionPatent ProsecutionSection 3(i)PatentsNippon A&L Inc. v. The Controller of Patents
An amendment restricting product-by-process claims to process-only claims is permissible under Section 59 where it narrows rather than broadens the scope of the claims as originally filed and remains within matter already disclose…
Claim AmendmentPatent ProsecutionProduct By Process ClaimsSection 59PatentsNovartis AG v. Union of India & Ors.
Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 imposes a distinct and higher threshold of patentability for new forms of known substances, over and above the ordinary tests of novelty and inventive step. A new form of a known substance mus…
EfficacyEvergreeningInventive StepKnown SubstancePatentsOpenTV Inc. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The exclusion of business methods under Section 3(k) is absolute and unqualified, unlike the per se qualification applicable to computer programmes; the true nature of a claim is determined by its substance rather than its form or…
Business MethodClaim AmendmentComputer Related InventionsSection 3(k)PatentsRaytheon Company v. Controller General of Patents and Designs
Novel hardware is not a prerequisite for the patentability of a computer-related invention under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act; the applicable test is whether the claimed invention involves a technical advancement and provides a…
Computer Related InventionsPatent ProsecutionSection 3(k)Software PatentPatentsSociete Des Produits Nestle SA v. The Controller of Patents and Design & Anr.
An appellate court hearing a challenge to refusal of a patent application has the same power as the Controller under Section 15 to permit amendment of claims, an appeal being a continuation of the original proceedings; a compositi…
Claim AmendmentInventive StepPatent ProsecutionSection 3(i)PatentsSulzer Mixpac AG v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Adjudication under the Patents Act has to be guided by the statute rather than by a mechanical, step-by-step application of judicial formulas. A patent decision cannot be overturned or deemed invalid solely because it did not stri…
Common Bar ElementInstallation BodyInventive StepObviousnessPatentsSyngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs
Under Section 16 of the Patents Act, a divisional application is maintainable where the plurality of inventions is disclosed in the provisional or complete specification accompanying the parent application, irrespective of whether…
Claim ConstructionDivisional ApplicationPatent ProsecutionPlurality Of InventionsPatentsSyngenta Participations AG v. Controller of Patents and Designs
Under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, efficacy is not a fixed, uniform standard confined to therapeutic effect; its content depends on the field of the invention. For an agrochemical compound, a new polymorphic form demonst…
EfficacyInventive StepPatent ProsecutionPrior ArtPatentsT-Mobile International AG and Co. KG. v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
Section 3(m) contains four disjunctive exceptions: a mere scheme, rule, or method of performing a mental act, and a method of playing a game. The word 'mere' qualifies the first three limbs, confining the exclusion to claims that …
Computer Implemented InventionGuidelinesMental ActMethod of Playing GamePatentsTapas Chatterjee v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
A rejection for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) must be supported by a structured, reasoned analysis identifying the skilled person, the inventive concept, and the specific differences from the cited prior art and wh…
Inventive StepKnown ProcessObviousnessPatent ProsecutionPatentsTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Intex Technologies (India) Ltd.
In disputes over standard essential patents, an implementer who negotiates without genuine intent to license while continuing to exploit the patented standard is an unwilling licensee, and courts may order interim security, includ…
FRANDInterim InjunctionPatent InfringementStandard Essential PatentPatentsVifor (International) Ltd. & Anr. v. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
A product-by-process claim protects the novel product itself where the product cannot otherwise be defined by its structural features, and obtainable by language in such a claim is descriptive rather than limiting; infringement is…
Claim ConstructionInterim InjunctionNoveltyPharmaceutical Patent