Summary
The Calcutta High Court rejected a constitutional challenge to India’s patent term provision (Section 53 of the Patents Act), where the appellants argued that long delays in grant made much of the patent period meaningless. They claimed that Section 11A(7) made patent rights unenforceable until grant, and sought to invalidate Section 53, which fixes a 20-year term from the date of filing. The Court saw no constitutional invalidity and upheld Section 53. Dealing with the appellants plea of Patent term extension, the Court stated that deciding or changing patent terms is the legislature’s job, not the judiciary’s.
Patent Term – Section 53 Challenge
The appellants, Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha and another, acquired a patent for a “fuel cell system and an eco-friendly vehicle” via an application filed on May 2, 2005. The patent was granted on December 28, 2012—after a delay of more than seven years. Arguing that this delay rendered much of the patent term commercially futile, the appellants approached the Calcutta High Court seeking a 15-year extension of their patent as compensation. They also sought a declaration that Section 53 of the Act—which calculates the term from the date of filing—is unconstitutional.
Their argument hinged on the perceived conflict between Section 53 and Section 11A(7) of the Act. While Section 53 fixes the patent term, Section 11A(7) confers patent rights from the date of publication of the application, which cannot be enforced until the patent is granted. According to the appellants, this framework unfairly deprives them of effective patent protection during the long pre-grant period, while still obligating them to pay renewal fees from the date of filing.
Decision on Section 53 Validity
The Court reviewed the provisions and found no inconsistency between them. It stated that Section 11A(7) grants exclusive rights during the pendency of the application but explicitly bars infringement actions until the patent is granted. Section 53, on the other hand, is a clear legislative declaration of the patent term of 20 years and reflects India’s compliance with international obligations, including the TRIPS Agreement. The Court pointed out that while the pre-grant phase may involve delays, it does not justify judicial interference with a legislative mandate.
In their arguments, the appellants relied on patent laws in other countries, particularly the U.S. Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) regime—which compensates patentees for administrative delays to justify the reliefs they had sought. However, the Court referred to prior judicial findings in India, including those in Nittoo Denko Corporation, where a committee formed to explore such reforms concluded that PTA was not suited to India. In a market where technologies evolve rapidly and 20 years of exclusivity is already considered lengthy, the Committee had stated that extending patent terms would hinder competition and public access. The Court agreed with this opinion of the Committee.
The Court further stated that patent rights in India are statutory creations, and that the judiciary cannot direct the legislature to enact or amend laws in a particular way. As per the Court, the attempt by the appellants to draw a constitutional challenge from administrative delay was legally unfounded and procedurally defective, especially given the appellants’ earlier unsuccessful attempts through writs, appeals, and review petitions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the arguments for extension of the patent term or in the challenge to Section 53. The statutory scheme was upheld as rational, balanced, and constitutionally valid.
Citation: Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., MAT 903 of 2024 with CAN/2/2024 (Calcutta High Court, Apr. 22, 2025). Available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/130670198/, Visited on: 23/04/2025.
You Might Also Want To Read
