S. 53 Patents Act | Should Patent Term Be Counted From Date Of Grant If There Was Delay In Deciding Application? Supreme Court To Decide

The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea seeking consideration of a mechanism for Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) in India, raising the question whether a patentee should receive additional patent protection where a substantial portion of the statutory 20-year term is lost because of delay in granting the patent.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued a notice in a plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's judgment, which had upheld Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, under which the term of a patent is 20 years from the date of filing of the patent application.

The issue before the Court was whether a delay caused in granting the patent can justify extending the statutory patent monopoly beyond the 20 years calculated from filing.

The case concerns a patent application filed on May 2, 2005, which was granted only on December 28, 2012, nearly seven years later.

The petitioner's grievance is that although the patent was not granted during this period, the seven-year delay continued to run against the patent's 20-year statutory term.

In practical terms, a patent granted in December 2012 would, under Section 53, ordinarily expire in May 2025 because its term is calculated from the 2005 filing date.

The petitioner, who was appearing in person, therefore seeks compensation for the period allegedly lost because of delay in the patent-grant process, including by extending the patent term. The petitioner referred to the US model of Patent Term Adjustment, under which certain patent-office delays can result in an adjustment of the patent term.

The Calcutta High Court declined to accept the petitioner's argument that the American model of PTA should be introduced through judicial intervention. It held that Section 53 and Section 11A(7) operate in different fields.

Section 11A(7) deals with the rights available to an applicant after publication of the patent application and before grant, whereas Section 53 fixes the duration of the patent at 20 years from the date of filing.

The High Court also observed that introducing a new statutory mechanism for compensating patent applicants for processing delays would essentially require legislation, which could not be directed by a court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.

Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, an SLP was filed before the Supreme Court.

The Court has requested Advocate Kruttika Vijay to assist it as amicus curiae.

The matter is listed next on October 26, 2026.

Cause Title: GUNJAN SINHA @ KANISHK SINHA & ANR. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.