The Patents Act, 1970 supports innovation while protecting public interests. Section 3 and 4 of Patent Act are important because they list what cannot be patented. These provisions ensure that only true inventions that benefit society get patents, blocking ideas that are silly, harmful, or not new. For lawyers, inventors, and policymakers, understanding these sections is vital to handle patent applications well. This article explains Section 3 and 4 of Patent Act in simple terms, covering their rules, meanings, examples, and effects.
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!
What is Section 3 and 4 of Patent Act, 1970
Section 3 of Indian Patent Act is called "What are not inventions” and it lists 15 types of things (labeled (a) to (p)) that cannot be patented. This section is critical when the Indian Patent Office reviews applications, as officials often reject ideas based on these rules. Below is a clear breakdown of each clause with the exact law, explanations, examples, and court cases.
Section 3(a): Frivolous Inventions or Against Natural Laws
The law says: "an invention which is frivolous or which claims anything obviously contrary to well established natural laws."
This stops patents for silly or impossible ideas. For example, a machine claiming to create energy forever without fuel would be rejected because it breaks the law of conservation of energy. The goal is to keep the patent system scientifically sound. Patent officers check if claims make sense based on known science, like physics or chemistry.
Section 3(b): Inventions Against Public Order or Morality
The law blocks: "an invention the primary or intended use or commercial exploitation of which could be contrary to public order or morality or which causes serious prejudice to human, animal or plant life or health or to the environment."
This rule covers things like biological weapons or tools for illegal acts, like hacking devices. For instance, a method to make harmful drugs would not get a patent. Courts focus on "serious prejudice" and allow patents for technologies with both good and bad uses if the main purpose is harmless. In cases about genetically modified organisms, courts look at environmental risks.
Section 3(c): Mere Discovery of Scientific Principles or Natural Substances
The law excludes: "the mere discovery of a scientific principle or the formulation of an abstract theory or discovery of any living thing or non-living substance occurring in nature."
Discoveries are not inventions, so they cannot be patented. For example, finding a natural microorganism without changing it is not patentable. However, using that discovery in a new way can qualify. In Dimminaco AG v. Controller of Patents & Designs (2002), the Calcutta High Court said a process using living organisms to make vaccines could be patented if it works industrially, showing the difference between discovery and invention.
Section 3(d): New Forms of Known Substances Without Better Results
This rule, often debated for drug patents, says: "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."
The explanation says that forms like salts or crystals of a known substance count as the same unless they work much better which stops companies from making small changes to extend patents. In Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court rejected a patent for Glivec’s beta-crystalline form because "efficacy" means better healing and not just traits like stability.
Section 3(e): Mere Mixtures Without Extra Benefits
The law excludes: "a substance obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of the properties of the components thereof or a process for producing such substance."
Mixtures must create a new effect beyond just combining parts. For example, mixing two known drugs without better results cannot be patented. In Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. Allergan Inc. (2013), a glaucoma drug combining Brimonidine and Timolol was rejected for not showing a combined effect.
Section 3(f): Simple Arrangements of Known Devices
The law bars: "the mere arrangement or re-arrangement or duplication of known devices each functioning independently of one another in a known way."
This stops patents for obvious combinations, like putting a radio on a flashlight without them working together. In Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries (1978), the Supreme Court said combinations must create a new result, not just add parts.
Section 3(h): Methods of Farming or Gardening
The law says: "a method of agriculture or horticulture." Traditional farming methods, like rotating crops, cannot be patented to protect farmers. However, devices or products for farming might qualify. The Madras High Court has interpreted this narrowly, allowing patents for technical farming tools.
Section 3(i): Processes for Treating Humans or Animals
The law excludes: "any process for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic diagnostic, therapeutic or other treatment of human beings or any process for a similar treatment of animals to render them free of disease or to increase their economic value or that of their products."
Medical methods, like surgery, cannot be patented to keep healthcare affordable. Devices or drugs used in treatments can be patented. In Kemin Industries Inc. v. Controller of Patents (2025), the Madras High Court said Section 3(i) only applies to direct treatments, not processes like making enzymes for animal feed.
Section 3(j): Plants, Animals, and Natural Processes
The law bars: "plants and animals in whole or any part thereof other than micro organisms but including seeds, varieties and species and essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals."
This protects biodiversity by blocking patents on genetically modified plants but allowing modified microorganisms. In Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (2019), the Supreme Court ruled genetically modified seeds cannot be patented under this clause.
Section 3(k): Math, Business Methods, or Software
The law excludes: "a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms."
Pure software or business ideas cannot be patented, but technical uses might qualify. In Ferid Allani v. Union of India (2019), the Delhi High Court allowed a patent for a software invention with a technical effect.
Other Clauses in Section 3 (l to p)
3(l): Books, music, or art (protected by copyright).
3(m): Mental steps, rules, or games.
3(n): Ways of presenting information.
3(o): Designs of integrated circuits (protected separately).
3(p): Traditional knowledge or copies of it.
These rules ensure patents don’t overlap with other intellectual property laws or harm cultural heritage.
What is Section 4 of the Patents Act, 1970
Section 4 says: "No patent shall be granted in respect of an invention relating to atomic energy falling within sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962."
This rule completely blocks patents for atomic energy inventions, like nuclear reactors or fission processes, to protect national security and keep government control.
Unlike Section 3’s detailed exclusions, Section 4 is strict and refers to the Atomic Energy Act for definitions.
Only few cases exist because these applications are rare and often kept private, but the government can take over such inventions if needed. This fits India’s policy to prioritize national safety in nuclear matters.
Read about the role of Patent in Intellectual Property Rights.
Difference Between Section 3 and 4 of Patent Act
Section 3 acts as a comprehensive filter for patent eligibility, excluding a wide range of subject matters to promote genuine innovation and protect public interests. Section 4, on the other hand, is a targeted restriction linked to India's atomic energy policy, ensuring these inventions are not commercialized through patents. Both sections contribute to the non-patentable inventions framework under the Act, but Section 3 is far more expansive in its exclusions. Let’s find out more.
Aspect | Section 3 | Section 4 |
Title | What are not inventions | Inventions relating to atomic energy not patentable |
Scope | Broad and general; lists 15 clauses (a to p, with g omitted) covering diverse exclusions like frivolous inventions, discoveries, methods of treatment, plants/animals, software, traditional knowledge, etc. | Narrow and specific; applies only to inventions related to atomic energy as defined under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. |
Structure | Detailed list with subsections, explanations (e.g., for clause d), and examples of non-patentable matters. | Single, concise sentence without subsections or lists; relies on external reference to another Act. |
Purpose | To define what does not constitute an "invention" under the Act, preventing patents on non-novel, non-inventive, or socially harmful matters. | To impose a blanket prohibition on atomic energy-related inventions for reasons of national security, aligning with specialized atomic energy regulations. |
Application | Applies universally to all patent applications; examiners use it to reject claims across fields like pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and technology. | Applies only to atomic energy inventions; such applications are referred to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board for scrutiny. |
Amendments/Notes | Has been amended multiple times (e.g., 2002, 2005) to include TRIPS-compliant provisions like clause (d) on pharmaceutical efficacy. | No major amendments; remains straightforward since enactment. |
Summary
Section 3 and 4 of Patent Act, 1970, show India’s balanced approach to patents promoting new ideas while protecting the public. By blocking non-inventive or sensitive ideas, these rules prevent misuse of the patent system. For lawyers, understanding Sections 3 and 4 means knowing the clauses and how courts interpret them, as seen in cases like Novartis and Monsanto. As India grows in technology, these sections will keep shaping patent laws to benefit society. Legal experts should guide clients to focus on creative steps and industrial uses to avoid rejections under Section 3 and 4 of Patent Act.
Related Posts:
Section 3 and 4 of Patent Act: FAQs
Q1. What is Section 3 and 4 of the Patent Act?
Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 list what cannot be patented, like frivolous inventions, harmful methods, and atomic energy-related inventions.
Q2. What is Section 4 of the Patent Act?
Section 4 of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 bans patents for inventions related to atomic energy for national security and public safety.
Q3. What is Section 4 of the Patent Act 1977?
There is no Patents Act 1977 in India; you may mean the UK Patents Act 1977, where Section 4 clarifies that methods of medical treatment are not patentable.
Q4. What is Section 3 of the Patent Act 1977?
The UK Patents Act 1977, Section 3 defines that an invention must involve an inventive step to be patentable.
Q5. What is Form 3 of the Patent Act?
Form 3 under the Indian Patent Act, 1970 is used to submit a statement and undertaking about foreign patent applications related to the same invention.
