Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Patent Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India


Affiliations
1 Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat — 131 001, Haryana, India., India
2 National Law Institute University, Bhopal — 462 044, Madhya Pradesh, India., India
 

The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court) does not merely decide a lis in personam but also declares the law on a question that it decides to answer. The law so declared by the Supreme Court becomes binding in rem by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Since the establishment of the Supreme Court, only three cases were decided in the 20 th century on The Patents Act, 1970 including one under The Patents and Designs Act, 1911, and in 21 st century only eleven cases have been decided under The Patents Act. Number of decisions per year is not even one. On an average, the Court has decided, 19 cases in a year; or one patent case in 1893.57 days, or in 5.18 years. Hence, only few questions of patent law have been answered. Many patent law questions still remain unanswered. This raises a two-fold problem. One, answers are not only too little but some of them are too ambiguous, too opaque and too vague. Two, absence of answer on certain basic points of patent law further heightens the problem of legal uncertainty and opacity. A review of decisions on the patent law reveals that: (i) the Court has declared patent law only in ten decisions; (ii) in no decision the validity of The Patents Act, 1970, was challenged; (iii) the Court has unanimously answered the questions of patent law; and (iv) only some of the questions of patent law have been answered by the Supreme Court unambiguously and unequivocally but some of the questions of patent law have been left open by the Court. This Paper identifies the intended and interpreted-constructed meaning of ‘Law Declared’ and seeks to cull out the principles of patent law as declared by the Supreme Court in the last 72 years.

Keywords

Patent, Supreme Court of India, Law Declared, the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, the Patents Act, 1970, Bench, Article 141, Constitution of India, Intended Meaning, Constructed Meaning, Constituent Assembly Debate, Infringement, Revocation, License, Pre-grant Opposition, Exclusive Marketing Rights, Interpretation-Construction, Counter-Claims, Controller of Patents.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Article 141 of the Constitution of India reads as: ‘Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts — The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.’

  • Article 136 of the Constitution of India reads as: ‘Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.’

  • Decisions of the Supreme Court analyzed in this Article show that writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has not been invoked in patent matters. There is no provision of statutory appeal to the Supreme Court in patent matters.

  • Gazette Notification S.O.1049 (E) dated 15 September 2003.

  • Act 38 of 2002.

  • Act 15 of 2005.

  • Ministry of Commerce & Industry’s Notification No.12/15/2006-IPR-III dated 2 April 2007.

  • Ordinance 2 of 2021; The Gazetteof India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1, CG-DL-E-04042021-226364, No. 20, dated 4 April 2021.

  • The Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Act 37 of 1952); The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957); The Customs Act, 1962 (Act 52 of 1962); The Patents Act, 1970 (Act 39 of 1970); The Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (Act 55 of 1994); The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act 47 of 1999); The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (Act 48 of 1999); The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (Act 53 of 2001); The Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (Act 13 of 2003); and the Finance Act, 2017 (Act 7 of 2017).

  • The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3(ii), CG-DL-E-22042021-226717, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade) (IPR-Estt. Section), No. 1550, S.O. 1668(E) dated 22 April 2021.

  • The Copyright Act 1957 (Act 14 of 1957). The Act came into force on 21 January 1958 vide Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, S.R.O No. 269 dated 21 January 1958.

  • The Patents Act 1970 (Act 39 of 1970).

  • Provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12 and Sub-section (2) of Section 13, Section 28, Section 68, and Sections 125 to 132 came into force on 1 April 1978; Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 (ii) videNotification No. S.O. 799 dated 10 March 1978.

  • In respect of provisions (except of sub-section (2) of Section 12 and Sub-section (2) of Section 13, Section 28, Section 68, and Sections 125 to 132) came into force on 20 April 1978; Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 (ii) vide Notification No. S.O. 300 dated 20 April 1978.

  • Act II of 1911.

  • All references to Sections are references to the Sections of the Patents Act, 1970 (39 of 1970), unless otherwise mentioned.

  • See, Bajaj Auto Ltdv TVS Motor Co Ltd (2009) 9 SCC 797 [Markandey Katju and A K Ganguly, JJ.]; Shree Vardhman Rice & General Mills v Amar Singh Chawalwala(2009) 10 SCC 257 [Markandey Katju and A K Ganguly, JJ.]. The name of the judge in bold in the citation of the case refers to the judge who delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970.

  • Act 10 of 1897.

  • The expression ‘interpretation-construction’ has been used in the same sense as explicated by Lawrence B Solum. See, Solum L B, The Interpretation-Construction Distinction, Constitutional Commentary, 27 (2010) 95–218.

  • Constituent Assembly Debates (Proceedings), Vol. VIII, 27 May 1949, http://164.100.47.194/loksabha/writereaddata/ cadebatefiles/C27051949.html (accessed on 15 July 2022).

  • In Re, The Special Courts Bill, 1978, (1979) 1 SCC 380. Y V Chandrachud, CJI, P N Bhagwati, V R Krishna Iyer, R S Sarkaria, N L Untwalia, S Murtaza Fazal Ali and P N Shinghal, JJ.; and Natural Resources Allocation, In Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1. S. H. Kapadia, CJI, D K Jain, J S Khehar, Dipak Misra and Ranjan Gogoi, JJ.

  • AIR 1955 SC 661. Sudhi Ranjan Das, Acting CJI, Vivian Bose, N H Bhagwati, B Jagannadhadas, T L Venkatarama Aiyar, B P Sinha and Syed Jaffer Imam, JJ.

  • AIR 1955 SC 661, 744.

  • Judgment Information System (JUDIS), Writ Petition No. 153 of 1966; Judgment dated 27 February 1967, https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/2449.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2022). K Subbarao, CJI, K N Wanchoo, M Hidayatullah, J C Shah, S M Sikri, R S Bachawat, V Ramaswami, J M Shelat, V Bhargava, G K Mitter and C A Vaidialingam.

  • Judgment Information System (JUDIS), Writ Petition No. 153 of 1966; Judgment dated 27 February 1967, p. 46, https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/2449.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2022).

  • Judgment Information System (JUDIS), Writ Petition No. 153 of 1966; Judgment dated 27 February 1967, p. 46, https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/2449.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2022).

  • (1979) 1 SCC 380, Y V Chandrachud, CJI, P N Bhagwati, V R Krishna Iyer, R S Sarkaria, N L Untwalia, S Murtaza Fazal Ali and P N Shinghal, JJ.

  • H M Seervai, Constitutional Law of Indiavol 2 (2nd edn, Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt Ltd) 1415, para 25.68.

  • In Re, The Special Courts Bill(1979) 1 SCC 380, 438.

  • (1988) 2 SCC 580, B.C. Ray and E S Venkataramiah, JJ.

  • (1988) 2 SCC 580, 585.

  • 1994 Supp (1) SCC 718. L M Sharma, CJI, M N Venkatachaliah, J S Verma, K Jayachandra Reddy and S C Agrawal, JJ. Unanimous order of the Court.

  • 1994 Supp (1) SCC 718, 726.

  • AIR 2002 SC 1598. G B Pattanaik, S N Phukan and S N Variava, JJ.

  • AIR 2002 SC 1598, 1606.

  • (2002) 4 SCC 388. S P Bharucha, CJI, S S M Quadri, U C Banerjee, S N Variava and Shivaraj V Patil, JJ.

  • (2002) 4 SCC 388, 406.

  • (2002) 8 SCC 361. R C Lahoti and Brijesh Kumar, JJ. Unanimous order of the Court.

  • (2002) 8 SCC 361, 369.

  • (2002) 2 SCC 420. K T Thomas and S N Phukan, JJ.

  • (2002) 2 SCC 420, 425.

  • (2003) 4 SCC 147. Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and Ashok Bhan, JJ.

  • (2003) 4 SCC 147, 157.

  • (2003) 7 SCC 517. Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.

  • (2003) 7 SCC 517, 520.

  • (2006) 8 SCC 212. Y K Sabharwal, CJI, K G Balakrishnan, S H Kapadia, C K Thakker and P K Balasubramanyan, JJ.

  • (2006) 8 SCC 212, 268.

  • (2007) 3 SCC 557. S B Sinha and MarkandeyKatju, JJ.

  • (2007) 3 SCC 557, 569.

  • (2012) 10 SCC 603. S H Kapadia, CJI, D K Jain, S S Nijjar, Ranjana P Desai and J S Khehar, JJ.

  • Court cited Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (5th reprint, 2010) 90.

  • (2012) 10 SCC 603, 729.

  • (2012) 10 SCC 1. S. H. Kapadia, CJI, D K Jain, J S Khehar, Dipak Misra and Ranjan Gogoi, JJ.

  • (2012) 10 SCC 1, 66–67.

  • (2014) 8 SCC 470. K S Panicker Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar, JJ.

  • (2014) 8 SCC 470, 517–518.

  • (2017) 7 SCC 444. Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.

  • (2017) 7 SCC 444, 463.

  • (2018) 6 SCC 21. JastiChelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.

  • (2018) 6 SCC 21, 55.

  • (2020) 17 SCC 602. R Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

  • (2020) 17 SCC 602, 616.

  • (2020) 5 SCC 421. R Banumathi, A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.

  • (2020) 5 SCC 421, 445.

  • 2021 SCC OnLine SC 463. L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

  • 2021 SCC OnLine SC 463, para 74.

  • 2021 SCC OnLine SC 463, para 114.

  • The decisions on patent law have been taken from the Judgment Information Systemof the Supreme Court (JUDIS), https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments. For the purposes of citations: Supreme Court Reports (SCR), TruePrint copies from Supreme Court Cases (SCC), SCC OnLine, Patent and Trade Marks Cases (PTC), Supreme Court Almanac (SCALE) and All India Reporter (AIR) have been referred and relied upon. Where, the judgment is not available on the above-mentioned judgment reporters, reliance has been placed on the judgment copy as available on JUDIS.

  • S M Dyechem Ltdv Cadbury (India) Limited(2000) 5 SCC 573 [M Jagannadha Rao and Y K Sabharwal, JJ.]; A C MuthiahvBoard of Control for Cricket in India(2011) 6 SCC 617 [J M Panchal and Gyan Sudha Misra(Dissenting), JJ.]; Super Cassettes Industries Ltd v Music Broadcast Pvt Ltd (2012) 5 SCC 488 [Altamas Kabir, S SNijjar and JastiChelameswar (Concurring)]; Sharat Babu Digumartiv Govt of NCT of Delhi, (2017) 2 SCC 18 [Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant, JJ.]; Abhiram Singh vC D Commachen(2017) 2 SCC 269 [T S Thakur, CJI (Concurring), Madan B Lokur, L Nageswara Rao, S A Bobde (Concurring), Adarsh Kumar Goel (Dissenting), U U Lalit (Dissenting) and Dr D Y Chandrachud (Dissenting), JJ.]; Competition Commission of India v Co-ordination Committee of Artists[A K Sikri and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.] JUDIS judgment dated 7 March 2017 https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/44649.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2022); Excel Crop Care Limited vCompetition Commission of India(2017) 8 SCC 47 [A K Sikri and N V Ramana (Supplementing), JJ.]; Kandla Export Corporation v OCI Corporation(2018) 14 SCC 715 [Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ.]; Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises vK S Infraspace LLP(2020) 15 SCC 585 [A S Bopanna and R Banumathi (Concurring), JJ.]. The name of the judge in non-bold and italics refers to the judge who wrote a separate or concurring or dissenting or supplementing opinion on his/her behalf or/and on behalf of his/her learned brother/sister judge(s).

  • (1979) 2 SCC 511.

  • (1999) 1 SCC 655.

  • (1979) 2 SCC 511.

  • (1979) 2 SCC 511, 517.

  • (1979) 2 SCC 511, 517–518.

  • (1979) 2 SCC 511, 518.

  • (1896) 14 Pat. Ca. 105.

  • (1979) 2 SCC 511, 518.

  • (1888) 6 Pat. Ca. 184.

  • (1979) 2 SCC 511, 518–519.

  • (1979) 2 SCC 511, 519.

  • 4 RPC 407.

  • (1967) R.P.C. 297.

  • (1979) 2 SCC 511, 519.

  • (1979) 2 SCC 511, 521.

  • (1871) 6 Ch. A. 706.

  • (1894) 11 R.P.C. 483.

  • (1979) 2 SCC 511, 525.

  • (1979) 2 SCC 511, 528.

  • (1986) 1 SCC 642.

  • (1986) 1 SCC 649.

  • (1986) 1 SCC 650.

  • (1999) 1 SCC 655.

  • (2008) 17 SCC 422.

  • (2019) 3 SCC 381.

  • (2008) 17 SCC 422.

  • (2008) 17 SCC 422–423.

  • (2008) 10 SCC 368.

  • (2008) 10 SCC 368, 380.

  • (2008) 10 SCC 368, 381.

  • (2008) 10 SCC 368, 381–382.

  • (2008) 10 SCC 368, 382.

  • (2008) 17 SCC 416.

  • (2008) 17 SCC 416, 421.

  • (2009) 10 SCC 257.

  • (2009) 10 SCC 257, 258.

  • (2009) 9 SCC 797.

  • Shree Vardhman Rice and General Mills v Amar Singh Chawalwala(2009) 10 SCC 257, 258.

  • (2009) 9 SCC 797, 798.

  • (2012) 13 SCC 429.

  • (2012) 13 SCC 429, 431.

  • (2012) 13 SCC 429, 432.

  • (2013) 6 SCC 1.

  • (2013) 6 SCC 1, 186.

  • (2014) 15 SCC 360.

  • (2014) 15 SCC 360, 373–374.

  • (2014) 15 SCC 360, 377.

  • (2014) 15 SCC 360, 377–378.

  • (2014) 15 SCC 360, 378.

  • (2014) 15 SCC 360, 378–379.

  • (2014) 15 SCC 360, 379.

  • (2014) 15 SCC 360, 379–380.

  • (2014) 15 SCC 360, 380.

  • (2014) 15 SCC 360, 381.

  • (2014) 15 SCC 360, 382.

  • (2014) 15 SCC 383.

  • (2015) 6 SCC 807.

  • (2016) 14 SCC 294.

  • (2019) 3 SCC 381.

  • (2019) 3 SCC 381, 390–391.


Abstract Views: 81

PDF Views: 97




  • Patent Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India

Abstract Views: 81  |  PDF Views: 97

Authors

Aqa Raza
Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat — 131 001, Haryana, India., India
Ghayur Alam
National Law Institute University, Bhopal — 462 044, Madhya Pradesh, India., India

Abstract


The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court) does not merely decide a lis in personam but also declares the law on a question that it decides to answer. The law so declared by the Supreme Court becomes binding in rem by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Since the establishment of the Supreme Court, only three cases were decided in the 20 th century on The Patents Act, 1970 including one under The Patents and Designs Act, 1911, and in 21 st century only eleven cases have been decided under The Patents Act. Number of decisions per year is not even one. On an average, the Court has decided, 19 cases in a year; or one patent case in 1893.57 days, or in 5.18 years. Hence, only few questions of patent law have been answered. Many patent law questions still remain unanswered. This raises a two-fold problem. One, answers are not only too little but some of them are too ambiguous, too opaque and too vague. Two, absence of answer on certain basic points of patent law further heightens the problem of legal uncertainty and opacity. A review of decisions on the patent law reveals that: (i) the Court has declared patent law only in ten decisions; (ii) in no decision the validity of The Patents Act, 1970, was challenged; (iii) the Court has unanimously answered the questions of patent law; and (iv) only some of the questions of patent law have been answered by the Supreme Court unambiguously and unequivocally but some of the questions of patent law have been left open by the Court. This Paper identifies the intended and interpreted-constructed meaning of ‘Law Declared’ and seeks to cull out the principles of patent law as declared by the Supreme Court in the last 72 years.

Keywords


Patent, Supreme Court of India, Law Declared, the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, the Patents Act, 1970, Bench, Article 141, Constitution of India, Intended Meaning, Constructed Meaning, Constituent Assembly Debate, Infringement, Revocation, License, Pre-grant Opposition, Exclusive Marketing Rights, Interpretation-Construction, Counter-Claims, Controller of Patents.

References