Patent Litigation in India After the 2024 Amendments: A Step Towards Global IP Standards?
- Vishal
- Jun 18
- 10 min read
Updated: Jun 24
India has been steadily reforming its patent laws to align with global intellectual property (IP) standards while maintaining a balance between innovation and public interest. Intellectual property laws must encourage innovation by providing inventors with exclusive rights, while also ensuring that these rights do not hinder access to essential technologies, medicines, or advancements that benefit society at large. Striking this balance is crucial, as overly rigid patent protection can stifle competition and innovation, while weak enforcement can discourage investment in research and development.
The Indian patent system has long faced challenges that have affected its efficiency, transparency, and effectiveness in protecting innovations. These issues not only impacted Indian businesses and startups but also influenced foreign investment in the country’s IP landscape. The necessity for the 2024 amendments arose from key inefficiencies such as prolonged patent examination timelines, cumbersome compliance requirements, weak enforcement mechanisms, and a lack of clarity in procedural aspects like divisional applications and compulsory licensing. Addressing these concerns was vital to fostering a more robust and investor-friendly patent system while ensuring that patents serve the public interest effectively.
The 2024 amendments address these concerns by introducing faster examination timelines, simplifying procedural requirements, and improving transparency in litigation. However, while these changes are a step towards aligning India’s patent framework with global standards, they also introduce new complexities that could impact patent litigation.
Patent litigation in India has historically been a complex and time-consuming process, with delays in patent examination, challenges in enforcement, and issues related to compulsory licensing. The 2024 amendments introduce key changes that may impact how patent disputes are handled, particularly in technology, pharmaceuticals, and innovation-driven industries. This article examines these changes in detail and evaluates whether they bring India closer to global best practices in IP enforcement.
Challenges in the Indian Patent System Before the 2024 Amendments
Before the 2024 amendments, India's patent system faced several challenges that created inefficiencies and legal uncertainties, including:
· The previous 48-month examination deadline resulted in slow patent grants, delaying enforcement and market entry for innovative products. In cases of Sphaera Pharma Pte. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court emphasized the importance of adhering to deadlines for filing examination requests, underscoring how delays can impact patent applications and illustrate how delays in the patent examination process can complicate and prolong legal proceedings related to patentability.
· Patent holders were required to frequently submit foreign filing disclosures and annual working statements (Form 27). These repeated filings added an administrative burden on patent holders, requiring them to submit details about how their patents were being used in India and foreign jurisdictions. Many patent holders found these requirements unnecessary and time-consuming, leading to delays and increased costs. For instance, Section 8 of the Indian Patents Act 1970 mandates applicants to disclose information about foreign applications for the same or substantially the same inventions. Failure to comply with this requirement can lead to rejection or revocation of patents, as seen in cases like Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. Allergan.
· Patent applicants faced challenges in protecting broader aspects of their inventions due to unclear provisions regarding divisional applications. A divisional application allows an applicant to split an existing application into multiple patents to cover different inventive aspects. However, the previous system lacked clear rules on when and how these applications could be filed, leading to legal disputes and inefficiencies. In the case of Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs (2023), the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of whether a divisional application under Section 16 of the Indian Patents Act requires the parent application to disclose multiple inventions. The case involved Syngenta’s divisional application, which was rejected by the Indian Patent Office because the parent application did not contain claims related to multiple distinct inventions. The court ultimately ruled that a divisional application is maintainable if multiple inventions are disclosed in the provisional or complete specification of the parent application, regardless of whether the application is filed voluntarily or in response to a Controller’s objection. This decision overturned previous interpretations, such as those in Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. The Controller of Patents, which had suggested that multiple inventions must be explicitly claimed in the parent application. The Syngenta case resolved ambiguity by allowing applicants to file divisional applications based on disclosures in the specification, thereby simplifying the patent registration process and protecting broader inventive aspects.
· India’s patent enforcement mechanisms were often seen as weak due to prolonged litigation timelines, lack of preliminary injunctions in key cases, and inconsistent rulings. This discouraged foreign investment in research and innovation, as companies feared their patent rights would not be adequately protected.
· India has historically used compulsory licensing to balance patent rights with public health interests. However, the lack of clear guidelines sometimes led to disputes and international trade tensions, as global pharmaceutical companies were uncertain about when their patents might be subject to compulsory licensing. In the landmark case of Bayer Corp. v. Natco Pharma (2012), Natco Pharma was allowed to produce a generic version of Bayer's cancer drug Nexavar, as it was deemed not available at a reasonable price in India. This decision underscored the use of compulsory licensing to ensure public access to essential medicines, but it also raised concerns among global pharmaceutical companies about the unpredictability of such measures.
· Patent owners, particularly startups and research institutions, found it difficult to monetize their patents due to unclear licensing frameworks and weak enforcement mechanisms. This reduced incentives for innovation, as securing financial returns on patented technologies remained uncertain.
· Both pre-grant and post-grant opposition proceedings faced long delays due to resource constraints and procedural inefficiencies, allowing weak patents to remain in force longer than necessary or delaying the entry of legitimate innovations into the market.
Key Amendments Affecting Patent Litigation
1. Reduced Timeline for Request for Examination (Rule 24B of the Patents Rules, 2003, as amended in 2024)
The timeline for filing a Request for Examination (RFE) has been reduced from 48 months to 31 months from the earliest priority date or filing date. This change aims to accelerate the patent prosecution process, ensuring quicker patent grants and enforcement. The move aligns India with faster patent timelines seen in jurisdictions like the U.S. and Europe. Timely examination is especially critical in fast-paced sectors like pharmaceuticals and electronics. By enabling earlier grant of rights, this amendment directly benefits patent holders seeking to commercialize or license their inventions. In Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013), a lengthy examination process contributed to delayed enforcement, an issue this amendment addresses.
2. Simplified Submission of Form 3 (Rule 12, as amended in 2024)
Form 3 pertains to the disclosure of information about corresponding foreign applications filed for the same or substantially the same invention. Earlier, patentees had to update Form 3 repeatedly throughout the patent prosecution process. The amendment simplifies this by requiring submission only once within three months from the issuance of the First Examination Report (FER). This reduces procedural burden and risk of unintentional non-compliance. In Chemtura Corporation v. Union of India (2009), such disclosure lapses were used to challenge patent validity. The streamlined process reduces the chances of technical rejections or invalidations, especially benefiting small entities or applicants unfamiliar with global filing norms.
3. Introduction of Certificate of Inventorship (Rule 70A – newly inserted by 2024 amendment)
The Certificate of Inventorship is a formal recognition issued by the Indian Patent Office to individuals named as inventors in a granted patent. While it does not establish legal ownership or assign rights, it serves as moral and professional acknowledgment of the inventor's contribution. This could be particularly beneficial in academic and research institutions, where inventorship is tied to recognition and promotions. It may also help avoid disputes over contribution, enhancing transparency in collaborative innovations.
4. Reduced Frequency of Filing Working Statements (Form 27 – Rule 131(2), as amended in 2024)
Form 27 is used to declare whether a patented invention has been worked (i.e., commercially used) in India. Prior to the amendment, patentees were required to submit this form annually. The 2024 change mandates submission once every three years, reducing compliance pressure. While this benefits patentees by easing administrative efforts, it also reduces visibility for generic manufacturers or third parties seeking compulsory licenses. In Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation (2012), the lack of sufficient working led to the grant of a compulsory license, this amendment may shift how frequently such assessments occur.
5. Amendments to Opposition Procedures (Rules 55 and 62 – 2024 amendment)
The opposition process allows third parties to challenge the validity of a patent. Pre-grant opposition can be filed before the patent is granted, while post-grant opposition follows the grant. The 2024 amendments streamline the timelines for these procedures, especially the time allowed for the Opposition Board to give recommendations and for applicants to respond. This is expected to avoid excessive delays and reduce misuse of the opposition system to delay genuine innovations. The case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. Allergan Inc. (2008) illustrated how prolonged oppositions impacted business decisions. The new structure aims to ensure the timely resolution of conflicts while maintaining a platform for genuine objections.
6. Empowerment of the Controller (Rule 6(6) – inserted in 2024 amendment)
The Controller now has the power to extend statutory deadlines and condone delays for up to six months. This flexibility can prevent applications from being rejected over minor procedural defaults and promotes procedural fairness. It is particularly helpful for startups and MSMEs unfamiliar with strict deadlines or facing logistical challenges. Prior to this change, lack of discretion led to irreversible lapses, often resulting in unnecessary litigation. This amendment aligns with broader goals of accessibility and ease of doing business.
7. 10% Reduction in Renewal Fees (Rule 80(3), as amended in 2024)
A 10% discount is now offered for advance payment of renewal fees for a minimum block of four years through electronic mode. Though not directly related to litigation, this amendment encourages long-term portfolio management and reduces unintentional patent lapses. This benefits patentees by minimizing the risk of rights forfeiture, which often led to litigation over restoration or third-party rights. It also aligns with digital governance initiatives and incentivizes proactive IP strategy.
Comparative Overview: India, United States, and Europe
Patent law frameworks in India, the United States, and Europe share the fundamental goal of promoting innovation, but they differ significantly in their litigation procedures, timelines, enforcement mechanisms, and administrative practices. Understanding these differences is crucial to evaluating how India’s 2024 amendments bring its system closer to international norms.
In the United States, patent litigation is primarily governed by the U.S. Patent Act (Title 35 of the United States Code), with enforcement through federal courts. The system provides strong injunctive relief, damages for infringement (including treble damages in cases of willful infringement), and preliminary relief in urgent cases. The U.S. also has an established post-grant review process under the America Invents Act (AIA), including Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR), which allow for relatively swift challenges to patent validity before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). For example, in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), the Supreme Court clarified the standard for granting injunctions in patent cases, reinforcing the need for equitable discretion rather than automatic relief.
In contrast, the European Patent Convention (EPC) provides a unified application and examination system via the European Patent Office (EPO), but enforcement remains national. Each member country handles patent litigation independently, although efforts like the Unified Patent Court (UPC) seek to harmonize enforcement across participating EU states. Europe emphasizes strong pre-grant scrutiny and opposition, and its procedures are often more centralized and rigorous than India's. The EPO allows oppositions within 9 months post-grant, and decisions are binding across designated states. In Actavis Group HF v. ICOS Corporation [2019] UKSC 15, the UK Supreme Court clarified standards for inventive step in pharmaceutical patents, showing how case law can vary significantly even within the European framework.
India’s system, although modelled in part after UK law, has traditionally lagged behind in litigation efficiency and clarity. The 2024 amendments seek to bridge these gaps. For instance, India’s shift to a 31-month RFE deadline brings it closer to the U.S. 18-month publication followed by prompt examination and the EPO's 6-month window post-request. The reduced frequency of working statements (once in 3 years) brings it somewhat in line with jurisdictions like the U.S., where no equivalent requirement exists, though the Bayh-Dole Act governs publicly funded inventions.
Moreover, India’s compulsory licensing regime is notably more accessible than in the U.S. or Europe. While the TRIPS Agreement permits compulsory licenses under certain conditions, India’s broader interpretation, as seen in Bayer v. Natco (2012), has drawn global attention and criticism. In contrast, the U.S. uses government use provisions under 28 U.S.C. §1498, and Europe rarely grants compulsory licenses outside of extreme public interest cases.
Litigation timelines are another key difference. U.S. courts may resolve patent disputes in 2–3 years, and European proceedings vary by country, but are generally faster and more predictable. In India, litigation can span over a decade due to procedural delays and multiple appeals. However, with streamlined opposition procedures, greater powers to the Controller, and enhanced digital filings, the 2024 amendments attempt to shorten this cycle.
Lastly, India’s Certificate of Inventorship is unique among the three systems. While inventorship is legally acknowledged in all jurisdictions (with severe consequences for misattribution, particularly in the U.S.), formal public recognition like a certificate is not standard practice elsewhere. This could provide a morale boost to researchers, especially in academia.
In conclusion, India’s amended patent regime is taking meaningful steps toward international harmonization. Although challenges remain, especially in enforcement and litigation consistency, the reforms position India as a more attractive venue for innovation, while maintaining its traditional emphasis on public interest and accessibility.
Towards a Progressive IP Ecosystem: Author’s Perspective
The 2024 patent law amendments mark a significant evolution in India’s IP framework, balancing efficiency, global alignment, and socio-economic considerations. While the reforms notably streamline procedures and reduce administrative burdens, several areas warrant further improvement.
First, while procedural timelines are now more aligned with global practices, enforcement mechanisms in courts remain sluggish. There is a pressing need for specialized IP benches, fast-track litigation procedures, and improved capacity building for judges and enforcement officers.
Second, while reducing the frequency of working statements eases compliance, it may lead to reduced transparency, affecting compulsory licensing decisions that safeguard public health. A balanced mechanism, perhaps through a digital, publicly accessible working database, could maintain oversight while minimizing burden.
Third, the broadened discretion granted to the Controller is welcome but must be paired with clear guidelines to prevent arbitrary use. Standard operating procedures or checks and balances will be crucial for maintaining trust in the system.
In my point of view, the future scope of Indian patent litigation lies in embracing technology-enabled case management, establishing a uniform litigation timeline, and promoting ADR mechanisms like mediation and arbitration for IP disputes. Further, India must focus on harmonizing substantive patentability criteria, such as clarity on inventive step and computer-related inventions, to reduce ambiguity.
Overall, while the 2024 amendments take India closer to global IP standards, continued engagement with stakeholders, empirical impact assessment, and iterative policy refinement will be essential for India to emerge not only as a compliance-driven IP jurisdiction but also as a true innovation-driven economy.
References:
Comments