Gunjan SinhaVs Union of India and another

 Analyzing the Validity of Patent Terms Under Indian Patent Act 1970

Introduction:

The concept of patents serves as a cornerstone in the realm of intellectual property law, providing inventors with exclusive rights over their innovations for a specified period. However, the determination of the patent term, particularly in the context of the Indian legal framework, has sparked debate and legal scrutiny. This article delves into the intricacies of patent terms under the Patents Act, 1970, with a specific focus on the validity of Section 53 and its interplay with other provisions.

Validity of Patent Term under Section 53:

Section 53(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, stipulates that the term of every patent granted after the commencement of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, and those patents that have not expired or ceased to have effect on the commencement date, shall be twenty years from the date of filing the patent application. This provision forms the crux of the petitioner's challenge, asserting that the term's calculation from the date of application is inherently flawed.

The petitioner contends that during the period between application and publication, the patentee only enjoys limited rights, primarily the right to institute proceedings for infringement. Thus, it is argued that it is unreasonable to count this interim period within the patent term, as the patentee does not fully benefit from patent rights until grant. This argument emphasizes the practical disadvantage faced by patentees due to the delay between application and grant.

Interplay with Section 11-A:

The petitioner further highlights the interplay between Section 53 and Section 11-A of the Patents Act. Section 11-A delineates the process of patent grant and publication, effectively resulting in a delay between application and grant. The petitioner argues that this delay deprives the patentee of valuable time within the patent term, warranting a reconsideration of the term calculation methodology.

Judicial Response and Legislative Discretion:

The Hon'ble High Court, however, rejected the petitioner's arguments, emphasizing the statutory nature of patent rights in India. Unlike fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, patent rights are creations of statute, affording the legislature discretion in defining the scope and duration of such rights. The Court reasoned that the legislature, in its wisdom, can selectively confer rights at different stages of the patent process.

The Court upheld the validity of Section 53, affirming the legislature's prerogative to determine the commencement of the patent term from the date of application. It concluded that such a provision does not contravene any statutory provisions and aligns with the legislative intent.

Conclusion:

The validity of patent terms under Indian law remains a subject of legal scrutiny and debate, particularly concerning the calculation methodology prescribed under Section 53. While petitioners may argue for a reconsideration of the term calculation methodology, courts have upheld the legislative discretion in defining patent rights. The decision underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of statutory provisions and legislative intent in interpreting patent law.

The Case Discussed:

Case Title: Gunjan SinhaVs Union of India and another

Judgment/Order Date: 07.05.2024

Case No: WPA No. 8691 of 2023

Neutral Citation:N.A.

Name of Court: Calcutta High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya.H.J.

Disclaimer:

This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com

Ph No: 9990389539