The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a special leave petition challenging the constitutional validity of the law under which a patent's 20-year term runs from the date of filing, even where years of that term pass before the patent is granted.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice on the plea.

The court had, on September 21, appointed Advocate Kruttika Vijay as amicus curiae to assist it.

The petition challenges an April 22, 2025, judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which dismissed an intra-court appeal against a Single Judge's May 2024 order upholding the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970.

The dispute concerns a patent application filed on May 2, 2005, for an invention described as a fuel cell system and an efficient eco-friendly vehicle mounted with a fuel cell system. The patent was granted only on December 28, 2012, about seven years after the application was filed.

The appellants' challenge centres on Section 53 of the Patents Act, which provides for a patent term of 20 years from the date of filing of the application. They argued that the patent was granted seven years after the application was filed, while the 20-year term nevertheless ran from the filing date, leaving a shorter period after grant.

The appellants also relied on Section 11A(7) of the Act, which provides that from the date of publication of a patent application until the date of grant, the applicant has the privileges and rights as if a patent had been granted on the date of publication. However, the provision expressly states that the applicant cannot institute infringement proceedings until the patent has been granted.

Their case before the High Court was that Section 53 and Section 11A(7) operate inconsistently: while Section 11A(7) prevents an applicant from instituting infringement proceedings until grant, Section 53 causes the 20-year patent term to run from the earlier filing date. The appellants therefore challenged the constitutional validity of Section 53 and also sought an extension of their patent term.

The Calcutta High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das rejected the challenge.

The Bench held that Section 53 and Section 11A(7) “operate in two different fields”. Section 53 deals with the term of the patent, while Section 11A(7) provides limited rights to an applicant between publication and grant. The rights under Section 11A(7) cannot be superimposed on Section 53 to give the patent a different statutory term.

The High Court further held that an infringement action can be brought only after a patent has been granted, although damages can be sought with effect from the publication date. It said Section 11A(7) provides interim protection from publication to grant without prematurely granting full patent rights.

The Division Bench also noted that the appellants had not approached the writ court immediately after the patent was granted in December 2012. It observed that the written representation and writ petition did not set out a ground explaining why Section 53 should be rescinded, withdrawn, or amended, and held that a definite ground was required to establish the challenge to its constitutional validity.

The appellants had relied on decisions of the Delhi High Court in Proctor and Gamble Company v Controller of Patents and Designs, Ferid Allani v Union of India and Nittoo Denko Corporation v Union of India. The Calcutta High Court found those decisions inapplicable to the present case because of the different facts and circumstances involved.

The Division Bench also considered the issue of the time consumed in processing patent applications. It referred to a committee constituted in the Nittoo Denko Corporation proceedings, which had considered expedited examination and whether waiver of maintenance fees or other measures could be considered for the period lost during processing.

The committee had also considered whether the US model of Patent Term Adjustment should be adopted in India. According to the judgment, the committee found that such a provision was not conducive to India, noting that the 20-year patent monopoly was itself considered sufficiently long.

The Division Bench held that these issues were matters for the legislature and not for the court to address by altering the statutory scheme. “The duty of the Court is to interpret the law and not to enact the law,” it said.

The Division Bench ultimately found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.

This was subsequently challenged befre the apex court.

The matter is next listed on October 26, 2026.

Click here to read the Calcutta HC Order

Tags:    
Case Title :  Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.