In the Indian patent regime, the concept of working of a patent extends beyond the mere grant of exclusive rights. It reflects the expectation that a patented invention must be commercially utilised and made available to the public within the territory. This principle is particularly significant in sectors where inventions directly affect public welfare, but its application is not limited to any one field.
A patent confers exclusive rights to manufacture, use, sell, and market an invention. However, these rights are not intended to enable passive ownership or market blocking. The statutory framework ensures that patent protection operates as a balance between incentivising innovation and securing public benefit. Mechanisms such as statutory disclosures and regulatory oversight function as checks to ensure that exclusivity translates into real-world availability rather than remaining purely notional.
Legal Framework: Section 83 – General Principles
Section 83 lays down the policy foundation of the Indian patent system. It clarifies that patents are granted to promote inventions and ensure their working in India, while recognising the efforts of inventors through exclusive rights. At the same time, it emphasises that patent rights should not be used merely to block trade and that inventions should be made available to the public at reasonable terms. The provision thus embeds the idea that patent protection must not result in an unreasonable monopoly detached from public interest.
Section 84 – Compulsory Licensing
Compulsory licensing operates as a regulatory mechanism where the patentee fails to meet statutory expectations. After the prescribed period from the grant of a patent, a third party may seek a licence on grounds such as:
A compulsory licence does not revoke the patent; rather, it dilutes exclusivity by permitting another entity to manufacture and supply the invention subject to payment of royalty. This ensures that public access is not compromised by inaction or limited commercialisation.
Section 146, Rule 131 and Form 27 – Disclosure of Working
Section 146 empowers the Controller to require patentees and licensees to submit statements regarding the working of a patent. Rule 131 prescribes Form 27 as the format for this disclosure and sets out the timeline for filing.
Following recent amendments, the statement of working is now required once every three financial years, and a single form may cover multiple related patents. This change reduces procedural burden while retaining the obligation of transparency.
Form 27 requires a broad commercial disclosure indicating whether the patent has been worked. Where it has been worked, the patentee must indicate the manner of commercialisation—whether through manufacture in India, import, or licensing. Where it has not been worked, reasons must be provided along with the steps proposed for future working. The emphasis is on meaningful commercial availability, rather than token activity or purely experimental use.
Section 122 – Consequences of Non-Compliance
Section 122 provides for penalties where a patentee fails to furnish information required under the Act or submits false statements. Non-filing or inaccurate filing of working statements may therefore attract monetary penalties and may also lead to adverse inferences in proceedings relating to compulsory licensing or revocation.
Form 27 as a Strategic Compliance Instrument
Form 27 functions as more than a procedural requirement. It serves as a transparency mechanism and carries evidentiary value in licensing disputes and regulatory assessments. Proper disclosure can demonstrate genuine commercialisation, support the patentee’s position in the face of compulsory licence applications, and reflect the affordability and accessibility of the invention. Conversely, non-filing or inadequate disclosure may weaken the patentee’s position and signal non-compliance with statutory expectations.
Compulsory Licensing and Public Access
Compulsory licensing represents the operational link between the working requirement and public interest. It allows the patented invention to reach the market through additional authorised channels where exclusivity has not resulted in adequate availability or affordability. The patentee retains ownership and receives royalty, while the public benefits from increased access. The mechanism thus preserves the incentive structure of patent law while preventing the under-utilisation of protected technology.
Conclusion
The Indian patent framework places post-grant accountability at the centre of patent rights. Working of a patent is not confined to legal ownership; it is measured by the extent to which the invention is made available, accessible, and affordable within the territory. Through statutory principles, disclosure requirements, and regulatory mechanisms such as compulsory licensing, the law seeks to maintain a balance between innovation and public welfare.
This approach underscores that patent protection is not an end in itself but part of a broader system designed to ensure that technological advancement translates into tangible societal benefit.