Patent law is a crucial part of intellectual property rights (IPR) that aims to encourage innovation and protect inventors’ rights. A patent grants exclusive rights to the inventor or patentee, allowing them to control the use, sale, and distribution of their invention for a certain period, usually 20 years. However, when a third party unlawfully makes, uses, or sells a patented invention without permission, it constitutes patent infringement. In India, patent infringement is a significant concern, and legal remedies are available to patentees under the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
This article explores the types of patent infringement, the legal provisions related to infringement under Indian law, and the remedies available to the aggrieved party.
What Constitutes Patent Infringement?
Patent infringement occurs when an individual or entity performs unauthorized acts with respect to a patented invention. The key types of infringement under Indian law include:
- Direct Infringement:
This occurs when a party manufactures, uses, sells, or imports a patented invention without the patentee’s consent. Direct infringement also extends to offering to sell or distributing a patented product without permission. In such cases, there is a clear violation of the patentee’s exclusive rights. - Indirect Infringement:
This type of infringement involves aiding or abetting another party to infringe on a patent. In India, indirect infringement is less explicitly recognized compared to some other jurisdictions but may be prosecuted under contributory infringement principles. - Literal Infringement:
In cases of literal infringement, the infringing product or process directly corresponds to the exact claims described in the patent. The court looks at whether every element of a patent claim has been copied. - Doctrine of Equivalents:
Even if an invention is not a literal copy of a patented invention, infringement may still be established if the infringing product or process performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result. This concept of infringement by equivalence is acknowledged in India under judicial precedents.
Legal Framework for Patent Infringement in India
India’s legal framework governing patents and infringement is primarily found in the Patents Act, 1970, which has undergone significant amendments in 2002, 2005, and beyond to comply with the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. The Act provides detailed guidelines on what constitutes infringement and the remedies available to patentees.
- Section 48:
Section 48 of the Patents Act grants the patentee the exclusive right to prevent third parties from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented product or process. Any unauthorized act in relation to these exclusive rights amounts to patent infringement. - Section 104:
Section 104 of the Act vests jurisdiction in the District Court to hear cases related to patent infringement. However, if a High Court has original jurisdiction (such as the Delhi High Court), the case can be filed directly before it. This provision ensures that infringement suits are handled by courts with requisite authority and expertise. - Section 107:
Section 107 lays down the defenses available to an alleged infringer. It includes grounds such as:- The patent is invalid.
- The invention does not meet the patentability criteria (e.g., novelty or inventive step).
- The patentee had concealed critical information.
- The infringer had a valid license to use the patented invention.
- Section 108:
Section 108 of the Patents Act specifies the remedies available to a patentee in the event of infringement. These remedies may include an injunction (temporary or permanent), damages, or an account of profits earned through the infringing activity.
Legal Remedies for Patent Infringement in India
When a patent is infringed in India, the patentee can seek several legal remedies, depending on the nature and extent of the infringement. The primary remedies are as follows:
- Injunctions: Injunctions are the most common form of remedy in patent infringement cases. They may be granted as:
- Temporary Injunction: A court may issue a temporary injunction to prevent further infringement while the case is being heard. This helps in stopping the unauthorized use of the patent until a final decision is made.
- Permanent Injunction: If the court rules in favor of the patentee, a permanent injunction may be granted to prohibit the infringer from continuing the infringing activities.
- Damages and Compensation: The patentee can seek monetary compensation for the losses suffered due to the infringement. The damages awarded are typically intended to compensate the patentee for the profit lost or the infringer’s unjust enrichment.In India, the court may also grant exemplary or punitive damages in cases where the infringement was particularly blatant or carried out in bad faith. Although rare, punitive damages serve as a deterrent against willful infringement.
- Accounts of Profits: Alternatively, the court may order the infringer to provide an account of profits, i.e., a detailed report of the profits made by selling the infringing product or using the infringing process. The patentee may then be awarded the infringer’s profits as compensation, ensuring that the infringer does not benefit financially from their unlawful activity.
- Anton Piller Orders: Courts in India also have the authority to issue Anton Piller orders, a form of civil search order. This order allows the patentee to search the premises of the infringer and seize relevant evidence of infringement, such as records, documents, and products. Anton Piller orders are typically granted without notifying the defendant, thereby preventing the destruction or tampering of evidence.
- Seizure and Destruction of Infringing Goods: In some cases, the court may order the seizure and destruction of infringing goods to ensure that they do not remain in circulation in the market. This remedy is particularly useful when the infringing products are still being sold or distributed despite an injunction.
Defenses to Patent Infringement in India
While the patentee is entitled to protection, Indian law also provides defenses to alleged infringers, who can challenge the validity of the patent or the claims made by the patentee. Common defenses include:
- Patent Invalidity:
The defendant can argue that the patent itself is invalid on grounds such as lack of novelty, inventive step, or industrial applicability. If the court finds the patent to be invalid, the infringement suit will be dismissed. - Non-Infringement:
The alleged infringer may claim that their product or process does not infringe upon the patent because it does not fall within the scope of the claims made in the patent document. - Experimental Use:
Under Indian law, using a patented invention for research or experimental purposes, particularly for the purpose of improving or developing the invention, is not considered infringement. This defense is crucial for fostering innovation and advancement in technology. - Statutory Exceptions (Bolar Exemption):
Section 107A of the Patents Act provides a statutory exemption commonly referred to as the Bolar Exemption, which allows third parties to use a patented invention without authorization for research, development, and submission of information to regulatory authorities for the approval of generic drugs. This is a critical exception for the pharmaceutical industry.
Recent Landmark Cases on Patent Infringement in India
Several landmark judgments have shaped the legal landscape of patent infringement in India:
- Roche v. Cipla (2009):
This case dealt with the issue of patent infringement in the pharmaceutical industry. Swiss drugmaker Roche alleged that Cipla, an Indian generic drug company, had infringed its patent on the lung cancer drug Erlotinib. The Delhi High Court dismissed Roche’s claim, ruling that Cipla’s generic drug was not infringing the patent and held that the public interest outweighed the patentee’s exclusive rights. - Merck v. Glenmark (2015):
In this case, Merck claimed that Glenmark’s production of a generic version of the diabetes drug Sitagliptin infringed its patent. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Merck, granting an injunction to stop Glenmark from manufacturing the generic version, thereby strengthening the protection of pharmaceutical patents. - Bayer v. Natco (2014):
In a landmark decision, the Controller General of Patents issued India’s first compulsory license to Natco Pharma, allowing them to manufacture a generic version of Bayer’s patented cancer drug, Nexavar. This decision balanced the need for innovation with public interest and access to affordable medicines.
Conclusion
Patent law plays a pivotal role in safeguarding inventors’ rights, but the legal battle over patent infringement is complex and multi-faceted in India. The Patents Act, 1970, provides comprehensive legal remedies to address infringement, including injunctions, damages, and other corrective measures. However, the balance between protecting innovation and promoting access to technologies is delicate, especially in sectors such as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.