Patent laws in India protect inventors by granting them exclusive rights to their inventions but these rights are often tested through legal disputes. The Patents Act, 1970, is the governing law for patents in India, and the case laws help in clarifying how the law applies. These case laws cover issues like patent infringement, where someone uses a patented invention without permission and compulsory licensing, where the government allows others to use a patent for public benefit. In this article, we will learn 10 most important patent case laws in India like BAJAJ Auto vs. TVS Motor (2009), which stressed the need for quick resolution of patent disputes, and Bayer Corporation v. Union of India (2009), which upheld a compulsory license for a cancer drug to ensure affordability.
Step into the future of legal expertise! Join our Advanced Certification Program in Intellectual Property Law, created by The Legal School in collaboration with Khaitan & Co. Designed for fresh law graduates and professionals, this unique course boosts your legal career. Don’t miss this opportunity—enquire today to secure your spot!
History of Patent Law in India
The history of patent law in India began with the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 which was based on the British patent system. Post-independence, India recognized the need for a patent regime tailored to its developmental goals. The Patents Act, 1970 was a significant milestone, favoring process patents over product patents for food, drugs and chemicals to promote local manufacturing and reduce reliance on imports. This act was influenced by the Ayyangar Committee Report, which aimed to make essential goods accessible.
In 2005, amendments in the Patents Act aligned India with the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement which introduced product patents across all technology fields. These amendments strengthened patent protections while maintaining provisions like compulsory licensing to protect public health, shaping the modern patent landscape in India.
Key Patent Case Laws in India
Several patent case laws have clarified and shaped the application of patent laws in India. Below is a summary of the key case laws, their issues, judgements and relevant legal provisions:
1. Novartis v. Union of India (2013)
Novartis sought a patent for the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate (Gleevec) which is an anti-cancer drug. The Indian Patent Office rejected the application under Section 3(d), arguing it was a new form of a known substance without enhanced efficacy. Novartis challenged this, claiming Section 3(d) violated TRIPS.
Issue: Is Section 3(d) of the Patents Act TRIPS-compliant, and does it unfairly deny patents for incremental innovations?
Judgement: The Supreme Court upheld Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 by ruling it compliant with TRIPS and necessary to prevent evergreening. Incremental innovations are patentable only if they demonstrate enhanced efficacy and hence, the court rejected Novartis’s patent application, prioritizing public access to affordable medicines.
2. UCB Farchim v. Cipla Ltd (2013)
UCB Farchim filed a pre-grant opposition against Cipla’s patent application, which was dismissed. UCB sought to appeal the dismissal.
Issue: Can an appeal be filed against the dismissal of a pre-grant opposition?
Judgement: The Delhi High Court ruled that no appeal lies against a pre-grant opposition dismissal. The appropriate remedies are post-grant opposition or a revocation petition under the Patents Act.
3. Snehlata C Gupte v. Union of India (2012)
A party filed multiple pre-grant oppositions to delay the grant of a patent, leading to allegations of abuse of the opposition process.
Issue: Do serial pre-grant oppositions constitute an abuse of the patent system?
Judgement: The Delhi High Court held that such serial oppositions are an abuse of process and issued guidelines to prevent delays, ensuring timely patent grants.
4. Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra (2010)
Wobben filed a revocation petition and a counterclaim for revocation in an infringement suit against the same patent.
Issue: Can a party pursue both a revocation petition and a counterclaim for revocation simultaneously?
Judgement: The Supreme Court ruled that pursuing both remedies is duplicative and impermissible. A party must choose one remedy in order to avoid procedural redundancy.
5. F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v. Cipla Ltd (2015)
Roche accused Cipla of infringing its patent for a pharmaceutical product, focusing on the interpretation of patent claims.
Issue: How should patent claims be construed in infringement cases?
Judgement: The Delhi High Court adopted a purposive construction approach and emphasized the invention’s purpose over a literal interpretation of claims.
6. Bayer Corp. v. Union of India (2014)
Bayer challenged the grant of a compulsory license for its drug Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar) and argued that it was unjustified and undermined patent rights.
Issue: Is the compulsory license for Sorafenib Tosylate valid in the public interest?
Judgement: The Bombay High Court upheld the compulsory license, citing public interest and affordability of life-saving drugs. Proper licensing prevents infringement.
7. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (2017)
Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) sued Glenmark for infringing its patents for an antidiabetic drug, raising concerns about public interest and trial delays.
Issue: Should patent infringement trials be expedited in cases involving public interest?
Judgement: The Supreme Court ordered a day-to-day trial, concluding in approximately 30 months, emphasizing the national interest in timely resolution.
8. Cipla Ltd v. Novartis AG (2017)
Cipla sought an interim injunction against Novartis and argued that the non-manufacturing of Novartis in India should bar relief.
Issue: Does non-manufacturing in India preclude granting an interim injunction?
Judgement: The Delhi High Court ruled that non-manufacturing alone is insufficient to deny an interim injunction by considering factors like balance of convenience.
9. Bajaj Auto Ltd v. TVS Motor Co. Ltd (2009)
Bajaj accused TVS of infringing its Digital Twin Spark Ignition (DTSi) technology patent. TVS filed a counter suit for non-infringement.
Issue: Did TVS’s technology infringe Bajaj’s patent and what is the procedure for non-infringement suits?
Judgement: The Madras High Court applied the Doctrine of Equivalence, upholding Bajaj’s patent. The Supreme Court emphasized speedy disposal of patent disputes.
10. Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd (2018)
Facts: Monsanto accused Nuziveedu of infringing its patents for genetically modified Bt cotton seeds, seeking summary adjudication.
Issue: Is summary adjudication appropriate in technically complex patent suits?
Judgement: The Supreme Court ruled that summary adjudication is undesirable in complex cases, requiring expert evidence at the final hearing.
Dive into Best IPR Law Firms in India.
Summary
Patent case laws in India have shaped the intellectual property by providing clarity and protection for inventors along with addressing the public interest. Case laws like Bayer v. Union of India and Ericsson v. Xiaomi also highlight the complexities of patent enforcement, especially in the pharmaceutical and technology sector. Concurrently, the history of tax law in India has evolved to include incentives like the Patent Box regime which supports patent holders by reducing the tax burden on royalty income and together, these legal frameworks foster a robust ecosystem for research, development and commercialization of inventions along with positioning India as a hub for innovation and economic growth.
Related Posts
Patent Case Laws in India: FAQs
Q1. What is the landmark case on patent law?
In Bayer Corporation v. Union of India (2009), the Court upheld India's first compulsory license for Bayer's cancer drug Nexavar and allowed Natco Pharma to produce it at a lower cost for public access.
Q2. What is the latest patent act in India?
The Patents Act, 1970. It has been amended several times with the latest significant changes in 2024 through the Patents (Amendment) Rules which simplified patent filing and examination processes to align with global standards.
Q3. What is the first IPR case in India?
The first notable intellectual property rights case was the Turmeric Patent Case (1997). India challenged a U.S. patent on turmeric’s medicinal properties, proving it was traditional knowledge. The U.S. Patent Office revoked the patent for lack of novelty.
Q4. What is Rule 57 in patent law?
Rule 57 of the Patents Rules, 2003, allows a patentee to request amendments to their patent after it’s granted. The request must explain the changes and reasons, but amendments are not allowed if a patent infringement or revocation case is pending in court.
Q5. Who has a patent for basmati rice now?
No one holds a patent for basmati rice itself, as it’s protected as a Geographical Indication (GI) by India and Pakistan. In 1997, RiceTec Inc. (U.S.) patented a basmati-like rice, but India’s challenge led to the withdrawal of key claims. The GI tag, granted in India (2016) and the EU (2016), protects authentic basmati from specific regions.
