Patent law plays a central role in protecting innovation and technological progress. A patent grants the inventor an exclusive right to make, use, sell, or import an invention for a limited period. This exclusivity is designed to reward creativity, encourage investment in research and development, and promote public disclosure of knowledge. However, exclusivity also brings with it the risk that others may exploit the invention without authorization. Such an unauthorised act constitutes patent infringement. Understanding what amounts to infringement, how Indian courts interpret it, the remedies available, and the defences raised is essential not only for inventors but also for businesses, legal practitioners, researchers, and students of intellectual property law.

This article provides a comprehensive explanation of patent infringement under Indian law, supported by relevant provisions of the Patents Act, 1970 and significant judicial precedents.

I. Statutory Basis for Patent Infringement in India

Patent infringement in India is primarily governed by the Patents Act, 1970, particularly Sections 48 to 62. Section 48 lays down the exclusive rights granted to a patentee. These rights differ depending on whether the patent is a product patent or a process patent.

1. Product Patent Rights (Section 48(a))

For a product patent, the patentee has the exclusive right to:

• make the product,
• use the product,
• offer it for sale,
• sell it, or
• import it for these purposes.

Any person who performs any of these acts without the permission of the patentee infringes the patent.

2. Process Patent Rights (Section 48(b))

For a process patent, the patentee has the exclusive right to:

• use the patented process, and
• use, offer for sale, sell, or import the product obtained directly by such process.

Thus, infringement can occur even if the infringer never uses the patented process directly but uses or sells the product obtained from it.

II. What Constitutes Patent Infringement

There is no single section in the Act defining “infringement.” Instead, infringement is understood through judicial interpretation aligned with Section 48. In broad terms, a patent is infringed when any person, without authority, performs an act reserved for the patentee.

A. The Key Elements of Patent Infringement

A claim of infringement must establish the following:

1. A valid patent exists.
2. The defendant performed an act that falls within the exclusive rights granted under Section 48.
3. The act was done without permission (license, assignment, or consent).
4. The allegedly infringing act occurred during the term of the patent and within the territory of India.

B. Infringement Must Be Determined by Comparing Claims, Not Description

Indian courts consistently hold that infringement is determined by comparing the allegedly infringing device or process with the claims of the patent. The specification and description assist in interpretation, but the claims define the scope of protection.

This principle was affirmed in multiple decisions, including:

• F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. (2008)
  The Delhi High Court emphasised that the claims, not the abstract or description, form the legal boundaries of a patent.
• Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries (1979)
  The Supreme Court held that claims must be construed in light of the specification but are the decisive factor in determining infringement.

III. Types of Patent Infringement

Patent infringement in India can be understood under several categories, each having distinct principles and judicial interpretations.

1. Direct Infringement

This occurs when a person performs acts reserved for the patentee without authorization. For example:

• manufacturing a patented pharmaceutical compound,
• selling a patented medical device,
• using a patented industrial process,
• importing a patented product into India.

Direct infringement is a strict liability offence—intentional or unintentional infringement is still infringement.

2. Indirect or Contributory Infringement

While the Patents Act does not explicitly define “indirect infringement,” courts have recognised situations where a person contributes to or facilitates infringement. Examples include:

• supplying essential components knowing they will be used to infringe a patent,
• inducing another party to use a patented process.

This principle was applied in Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company (2009), where the Supreme Court discussed indirect infringement in the context of motor vehicle technology disputes.

3. Process Patent Infringement

Section 104A of the Patents Act introduces a special rule for process patents: if the patentee proves that the defendant’s product is identical to the patented product, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that their product was made by a different process. This reversal of burden is crucial in pharmaceutical cases where the product appears identical but the process used is difficult to verify.

The principle was applied in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., where the court acknowledged the difficulty in proving process usage in chemical and pharmaceutical inventions.

4. Infringement by Importation

Even if a product is manufactured outside India, importing it into India without authorization constitutes infringement under Section 48. This ensures that Indian patents maintain territorial exclusivity.

IV. Acts That Do Not Constitute Infringement

The Patents Act provides several statutory exceptions where certain activities do not amount to infringement.

1. Experimental Use Exception (Section 47)

Patented inventions may be used for:

• experiments,
• research, and
• teaching.

This allows academic institutions, laboratories, and students to experiment with patented inventions without fear of infringement.

2. Government Use (Section 100)

The central government may use a patented invention for public purposes. Compensation is payable but infringement is not triggered.

3. Importation for Personal Use (Section 47)

A patented product may be imported for personal use in some circumstances, provided it is not intended for commercial sale.

4. Bolar or Regulatory Use Exception (Section 107A)

This provision allows third parties to:

• use a patented invention to obtain regulatory approvals (such as drug approvals),
• manufacture or export patented products for regulatory purposes.

This exception was upheld in Bayer Corporation v. Union of India (2010), where the Delhi High Court ruled that Section 107A enables manufacturers to prepare for launch immediately after the expiry of a patent.

V. Defences in Patent Infringement Cases

Defendants in infringement cases may raise several defences under the Patents Act.

1. Patent Invalidity

A defendant may challenge the validity of the patent on grounds including:

• lack of novelty,
• obviousness,
• insufficient disclosure,
• lack of industrial applicability,
• claims not fairly based on the specification,
• invention falling within Section 3 (non-patentable subject matter).

If the patent is declared invalid, no infringement can occur.

2. Non-Use of the Patent

A defendant may argue that the invention was never worked in India. While this does not negate infringement, it is relevant in compulsory licence proceedings.

3. Independent Development

A defendant may claim they developed the invention independently. While this may limit damages, it does not excuse infringement if the patented claims overlap.

4. Reverse Engineering Is Not Infringement

Once a product is lawfully purchased, reverse engineering for research or analysis does not amount to infringement unless it involves commercial exploitation.

5. Section 107A Safe Harbour

If the accused use falls under the category of regulatory preparation, it is exempt from infringement.

VI. Remedies for Patent Infringement

Patent infringement is addressed through civil remedies, and in rare cases, criminal liability if it overlaps with customs or counterfeiting laws.

1. Injunctions

Courts may grant:

• Interim Injunctions: temporary injunctions to immediately stop infringing activities.
• Permanent Injunctions: final injunctions granted after trial.
• Anton Piller Orders: allowing search and seizure of infringing goods.
• John Doe Orders: against unknown infringers, usually in cases involving counterfeit goods.

The importance of injunctions was highlighted in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., where the Delhi High Court discussed the need to balance public interest with patent exclusivity in pharmaceutical matters.

2. Damages or Account of Profits

The patentee may claim:

• compensatory damages,
• punitive damages (in rare cases), or
• account of profits, which requires the defendant to hand over profits earned from infringement.

The Delhi High Court in Philips v. Amaze Store (2019) awarded substantial damages in a patent infringement involving DVD technology.

3. Delivery Up and Destruction

Courts can order the destruction or surrender of infringing goods and equipment.

4. Customs Enforcement

Under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Rules, customs authorities can seize goods suspected of infringing patents.

VII. Important Case Laws on Patent Infringement in India

1. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. (2008 & 2015)

This case involving the cancer drug Erlotinib is one of India’s most important patent disputes. The court examined:

• the test of prima facie infringement,
• claim construction,
• public interest considerations, and
• the standards for injunctions in pharmaceutical cases.

The court held that patent rights must be balanced against the public interest of affordable access to medicines.

2. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company (2009)

This case concerned technology relating to internal combustion engines. The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of scientific comparison and claim interpretation. It reiterated that patent claims, not titles or summaries, define the exclusive rights.

3. Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries (1979)

The Supreme Court established the principle that claims determine the scope of the patent. The Court also held that for infringement to occur, all essential elements of the patented claim must be found in the infringing product.

4. Bharat Bhogilal Patel v. Union of India (2014)

This case dealt with customs enforcement of patents and highlighted judicial caution in preventing misuse of patent claims for obstructing imports without substantive evidence.

5. Bayer Corporation v. Union of India (2010)

This judgment clarified the scope of the Bolar exception under Section 107A, holding that use of patented inventions for regulatory purposes is not infringement.

VIII. Importance of Patent Infringement Law in India

Patent infringement laws play a crucial role in:

• protecting innovation,
• supporting economic growth,
• preventing theft of technology,
• promoting ethical competition,
• encouraging research investment, and
• balancing public interest with private rights.

India’s patent infringement jurisprudence attempts to strike a delicate balance between encouraging innovation and ensuring affordability, especially in sectors like pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.

Conclusion

Patent infringement under Indian law is a carefully structured and judicially sculpted area of intellectual property rights. The Patents Act, 1970 clearly defines the exclusive rights granted to patent holders and specifies the circumstances under which these rights may be enforced. Indian courts have developed a rich jurisprudence balancing the interests of patent owners with larger public welfare considerations. Through statutory provisions, judicial interpretation, and procedural safeguards, the Indian legal system ensures that patents are protected while also preventing overreach, misuse, or unjust monopolies.

Understanding infringement—its scope, defences, remedies, and case law—is essential for inventors, lawyers, businesses, and policymakers. It ensures that innovation continues to thrive while public interest remains safeguarded, creating a dynamic and equitable legal landscape.