The Indian Patent Act, 1970, under Sections 3 and 4, excludes certain inventions from patentability to protect public interest, ethics, and natural principles. Non-patentable categories include frivolous inventions, natural discoveries, and methods against public order.
Introduction
The Indian Patent Act of 1970, particularly Sections 3 and 4[1], provides a comprehensive framework for determining what qualifies as a non-patentable invention. While the principle of patent law seeks to encourage innovation by granting exclusive rights to inventors, not all innovations meet the criteria for patentability.
Principle of Patent Law
The foundation of patent law rests on promoting genuine innovation. However, mere discoveries, ideas, or incremental changes without substantive innovation do not merit patent protection. Key principles include:
- Novelty, Utility, and Non-Obviousness: While these are general requirements for patentability, exceptions exist where public interest supersedes these criteria.
- Public Interest: Protection of public order, morality, and environmental health is paramount, even at the cost of denying patent rights.
Categories of Non-Patentable Inventions Under Section 3
Section 3 of the Patent Act, 1970[2], defines various categories of inventions that are non-patentable. These exclusions stem from ethical considerations, adherence to natural principles, and the broader intent to prevent monopolization in specific domains. The key categories are outlined below:
1. Section 3(a)[3]: Frivolous Inventions
Inventions that are frivolous or contrary to well-established natural laws are deemed non-patentable. For instance, perpetual motion machines, which violate the laws of thermodynamics, fall under this category.
2. Section 3(b)[4]: Public Order and Morality
Inventions whose exploitation could harm public order, morality, human, animal, or plant life, or the environment are excluded. Examples include methods for cloning humans and biological weapons.
3. Section 3(c)[5]: Discoveries of Natural Substances
The discovery of existing natural substances or principles is not patentable. This includes scientific principles like Newton’s laws, living or non-living substances such as a new mineral, and abstract theories like the formulation of a new mathematical theorem.
4. Section 3(d)[6]: Incremental Changes
Mere discovery of a new form of a known substance, unless it significantly enhances efficacy, is non-patentable. For example, a new crystalline form of a drug without increased therapeutic efficacy does not qualify.
5. Section 3(e)[7]: Aggregation of Properties
Mixtures that result solely in the aggregation of individual properties without any synergistic effect are non-patentable. An example is a mixture of known fertilizers that retains the properties of its individual components.
6. Section 3(f)[8]: Duplication of Known Devices
Simple duplication or aggregation of known devices without yielding a new result is non-patentable. For instance, combining a flashlight and a clock without any novel functionality falls under this category.
7. Section 3(h)[9]: Agricultural or Horticultural Methods
Methods related to agriculture or horticulture are excluded from patentability. Examples include soil enrichment techniques and methods for cultivating mushrooms or algae.
8. Section 3(i)[10]: Medical and Surgical Methods
Methods for treating humans or animals are non-patentable. Examples include techniques for administering drugs and non-invasive surgical methods.
9. Section 3(j)[11]: Biological Processes
Essential biological processes for the propagation of plants and animals are excluded from patentability. For example, processes for producing new plant varieties through natural cross-breeding are non-patentable.
10. Section 3(k)[12]: Mathematical and Computer Programs
Mathematical methods, business methods, and computer programs per se are not patentable. Examples include algorithms for data sorting and business management strategies.
11. Section 3(l)[13]: Aesthetic Creations
Aesthetic creations such as artistic, literary, or musical works are non-patentable. Examples include cinematographic works and designs for sculptures.
12. Section 3(m)[14]: Mental Acts or Games
Schemes, rules, or methods for mental acts or playing games are excluded. Examples include methods for solving puzzles and rules for playing chess.
13. Section 3(n)[15]: Presentation of Information
The mere presentation of information, such as charts or tables, is not patentable. Examples include railway timetables and infographic designs.
14. Section 3(o)[16]: Topography of Integrated Circuits
Semiconductor chip designs and other circuit topographies are excluded from patentability.
15. Section 3(p)[17]: Traditional Knowledge
Traditional knowledge or its duplication is non-patentable. Examples include Ayurvedic remedies known for generations and traditional agricultural practices.
Section 4: Atomic Energy Innovations
Section 4[18] specifies that inventions related to atomic energy are not eligible for patent protection. The key exclusions under this section include innovations that involve fissionable materials or the management of atomic energy. Such inventions are owned by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. This ownership extends to a variety of inventions, including, but not limited to, nuclear reactor designs and methods for uranium enrichment. These innovations are deemed crucial to national security and are thus managed by the government rather than being subject to private patent claims.
Understanding Non-patentable Inventions through Landmark Cases
In the landmark case of Novartis AG v. Union of India[19], the Supreme Court of India emphasized that the mere discovery of an existing substance does not qualify as an invention. The Court further clarified that for pharmaceutical patents, there is an additional test of "enhanced therapeutic efficacy" when claiming incremental changes to existing drugs. In this case, Novartis's drug did not meet this criterion. The Court reasoned that the product in question was merely a new form of an existing substance, rather than a completely new invention. The original substance had existed in its amorphous form, and Indian patent law under Section 3(d)[20] specifically excludes new forms of substances unless they demonstrate enhanced efficacy. Novartis had argued that the polymorph form of the imatinib molecule, which had better flow properties, increased thermodynamic stability, and lower hygroscopicity, resulted in improved efficacy. However, the Court ruled that these enhancements were insufficient to meet the legal standard for patentability.
In the case of Glochem Industries Ltd. v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd.[21], the Court reiterated that it is the responsibility of the patent applicant to demonstrate that their discovery results in an enhancement of the known therapeutic efficacy of the original substance. If the discovery is merely a derivative of a known substance, the applicant must show that the derivative's properties differ significantly in terms of efficacy. The Court emphasized the importance of proving the substantial improvement of a substance before granting patent rights.
Similarly, in Ten Xc Wireless Inc. & Anr. v. Mobi Antenna Technologies[22], the Delhi High Court ruled that a method of replacing conventional antennae with split-sector antennae or a split-sector asymmetric antennae was not patentable. The Court determined that these methods were merely applications of an already known asymmetric antenna. Under Section 3(d)[23] of the Indian Patents Act, the Court concluded that the subject matter claimed did not constitute a new invention, as it did not introduce anything beyond the existing knowledge. These decisions reinforce the principle that incremental changes or discoveries of known substances or technologies must demonstrate significant innovation to qualify for patent protection under Indian law.
Conclusion
The Indian Patent Act carefully balances fostering innovation with safeguarding public interest. Sections 3 and 4[24] delineate clear boundaries to ensure that patents are granted only for genuine advancements that contribute to industrial, technological, or societal progress. By excluding frivolous, unethical, and incremental innovations, the law prevents monopolization in critical sectors while promoting fair access to knowledge and resources. Understanding these exclusions is crucial for inventors and businesses to navigate the complexities of patent law and align their innovations with legal standards.
[1] The Indian Patent Act, 1970, ss. 3,4.
[2] Id. at s. 3.
[3] Id. at s. 3(a).
[4] Id. at s. 3(b).
[5] Id. at s. 3(c).
[6] Id. at s. 3(d).
[7] Id. at s. 3(e).
[8] Id. at s. 3(f).
[9] Id. at s. 3(h).
[10] Id. at s. 3(i).
[11] Id. at s. 3(j).
[12] Id. at s. 3(k).
[13] Id. at s. 3(l).
[14] Id. at s. 3(m).
[15] Id. at s. 3(n).
[16] Id. at s. 3(o).
[17] Id. at s. 3(p).
[18] Id. at s. 4.
[19] AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 1311.
[20] Supra at 6.
[21] AIR 2010 BOMBAY 76.
[22] CS/COMM 977/2016.
[23] Supra at 6.
[24] Supra at 1.
