Patent Duration From Application Date Rather Than Granting Date Aligns With International Standards, Calcutta High Court Upholds Constitutionality Of Sec. 53

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya upheld the constitutionality of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, which mandates a twenty-year patent term from the application date. The bench rejected the Petitioner's contention that the patent term must be counted from the grant of the patent rather than the application date. It was held that Section 53 aligns with international standards under the TRIPS Agreement and doesn't contradict interim provisions like Section 11-A, which grants additional but limited rights to applicants before a patent grant. Brief Facts:The Petitioner challenged the validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970 before the High Court of Calcutta (“High Court”). This section stipulates that the term of every patent, granted after the enactment of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, shall be twenty years from the date of filing the patent application. The Petitioner contested this provision primarily because it contradicts other sections of the statute. He argued that since the full rights of a patent only commence upon its grant, counting the term from the date of application is inherently contradictory.The Petitioner further contended that the rights conferred by a patent do not come into effect from the date of application but are instead limited until publication and subsequent grant. This renders it unreasonable to count the term of the patent from the application date, as it does not align with the practical timeline of patent rights assertion. The Petitioner also highlighted the loss of valuable time for the patentee, in light of the interplay between Section 53 and Section 11-A of the Patents Act, which delineates rights between application and grant. In response, the State (Union of India) contended that Sections 11-A and 53 of the Patents Act are independent, and operate at different stages and serve distinct purposes. Section 11-A (7) grants additional but limited rights to applicants before a patent grant, which does not warrant challenging the validity of Section 53. Moreover, the introduction of Section 11-A is justified as it aligns with India's international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, which mandates counting the twenty-year protection period from the date of filing. Further, Section 53 operates after the applicant's rights are established, contrasting it with the interim provisions of Section 11-A (7). Additionally, no time is lost for patentees as the twenty-year term is calculated from the application date. Observations of the High Court:The High Court delved into India's international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, which mandates a twenty-year protection period from the filing date. The High Court noted that while the Agreement allows for a longer term, India has opted for strict compliance by fixing the term at twenty years from filing, a decision well within legislative competence.The High Court further examined the interplay between Section 53 and Section 11-A of the Patents Act. It elucidated that the two sections operate at different stages of the patent process, with Section 11-A (7) conferring additional but limited rights to applicants between application and grant. This does not conflict with the stipulation of the patent term under Section 53 of the Act.Moreover, the High Court highlighted the legislative intent behind the amendments to Section 53, which aimed at providing uniform patent rights and extending the patent term, thus aligning with international standards. It held that the gradation of patent stages and associated rights do not violate constitutional principles, as patent rights are statutory, not fundamental, rights.Conclusively, the High Court found no inherent contradiction or irrationality in Section 53 vis-à-vis Section 11-A. It upheld the constitutionality and legitimacy of Section 53, ruling against the Petitioner's challenge to strike it down. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.Case Title: Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha and Anr. vs the Union of India and Anr.Case No.: WPA No. 8691 of 2023Advocate for the Petitioner: N.A.Advocate for the Respondents 1 and 2: Mr Sukumar Bhattacharyya and Mr Avinash KankaniClick Here To Read/Download Order

Patent Duration From Application Date Rather Than Granting Date Aligns With International Standards, Calcutta High Court Upholds Constitutionality Of Sec. 53

Smita Singh

Tags