India: Experimentation / Research Exemption In Indian Patent Law: Scope And Ambit Of Section 47(3) Remains Uncertain!

Last Updated: 8 December 2017
Article by Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Section 47(3) of the Indian Patent law i.e. Patents Act, 1970 (as amended) ("Act") provides for experimentation / research exemption to patent infringement. Section 47 of the Act reads as follows:

"47. Grant of patents to be subject to certain conditions.—The grant of a patent under this Act shall be subject to the condition that—

(1) any machine, apparatus or other article in respect of which the patent is granted or any article made by using a process in respect of which the patent is granted, may be imported or made by or on behalf of the Government for the purpose merely of its own use;

(2) any process in respect of which the patent is granted may be used by or on behalf of the Government for the purpose merely of its own use;

(3) any machine, apparatus or other article in respect of which the patent is granted or any article made by the use of the process in respect of which the patent is granted, may be made or used, and any process in respect of which the patent is granted may be used, by any person, for the purpose merely of experiment or research including the imparting of instructions to pupils; and

(4) in the case of a patent in respect of any medicine or drug, the medicine or drug may be imported by the Government for the purpose merely of its own use or for distribution in any dispensary, hospital or other medical institution maintained by or on behalf of the Government or any other dispensary, hospital or other medical institution which the Central Government may, having regard to the public service that such dispensary, hospital or medical institution renders, specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette." 

Statutory Evolution

At the time of Independence, India's patent regime was governed by the Patents and Designs Act, 1911. Shortly after Independence, in 1949, a committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Justice (Dr.) Bakshi Tek Chand, to undertake a comprehensive review of the working of the 1911 Act. In 1957, another committee came to be appointed under the chairmanship of Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar to take a fresh look at the law of patent and to completely revamp and recast it to best sub-serve the contemporary needs of the country.

Justice Ayyangar submitted a comprehensive Report on Patent Law Revision in September 1959 and the new law of patent, namely, the Patents Act, 1970, came to be enacted mainly based on the recommendations of the report, and came into force on April 20, 1972, replacing the Patents and Designs Act, 1911.

Justice Ayyangar in his report noted that the right of research workers to use the invention – whether it be an article or a process – for the purposes of carrying out experiments – in the course of research, as distinguished from use for a commercial purpose is one matter in connection with the right of patentees which requires to be clarified. In this connection, while taking note of the uncertainty of the law on this topic in the U.K., Justice Ayyangar took the view that "I consider it desirable that the law should specifically exempt use of the patented articles or processes or the use of articles or products made by the use of the patented process or patented machine or apparatus for experimental purposes from being actionable as an infringement."

Justice Ayyangar also disagreed with the view taken in the case of United Telephone Co. v. Sharples, (2 RPC 28) that the use of an infringing article for the purpose of instructing pupils – pulling out the article to pieces and putting them together – was not a 'mere experimental user' and amounted to an infringement. Justice Ayyangar suggested that the insertion of the words 'including the use of the patented article or process for the purpose of imparting instruction to pupils' in the clause would avoid the above interpretation. Justice Ayyangar finally suggested a redraft of Clause 27 prescribing Rights of a patentee1 containing an exception as follows:

"(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the making or using of a patented machine or apparatus or other article, or the use of a patented process or the use of an article made by the use of the patented process, machine or apparatus for the purposes merely of experiment or research including the imparting of instruction to pupils and not by way of commercial use, shall not be deemed to constitute an infringement of the rights conferred on a patentee by this Act."

Section 47 as it stands now on the statute book was originally introduced in the Patents Act, 1970 and since then it has remained untouched.

Examining Jurisprudence

The "experimentation/research" exception captured under Section 47(3) of the Act, though at first blush, appears to be fairly wide, but its scope and ambit is yet to be tested in a Court of law in India.

Although there are couple of cases wherein the Court had occasion to interpret Section 47 of the Act, these decisions were rendered in a different context i.e. in the context of patent litigation related to Government tenders. Despite seemingly broad scope of protection, the exact contours of the exemption provided by Section 47(3) still remain not completely clear and any inquiry into its applicability remains highly fact-specific. For instance, Section 47(3) is silent about certain aspects like liability of third party who performs a driving test for a prototype vehicle on the public road in India, assuming that the prototype vehicle is equipped with a patented technology owned by a competitor.

This article attempts to address the above question by exploring the related case laws, a prevailing interpretation of laws, or any other related information.

Although Section 47(3) uses terms like "experiment" or "research" which are not defined anywhere in the statute, what is noteworthy is that the phrase "experiment or research including the imparting of instructions to pupils" used in this provision is qualified by the term "merely", which means that an activity can qualify under this provision only if it is limited to experiment or research and this usage would limit the scope of the terms "research" and "experiment".

Indian Case Laws:

Although there is no Indian case law directly related to the above issue, one can derive some light from the Indian cases of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. M/s. A. I. Chopra, Engineers & Contractors and Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., [2009 (111) Bom LR 479] and Low Heat Driers (P) Ltd. v. Biju George and Anr., [2010 (2) KHC 566] wherein the Court had occasion to interpret Section 47 of the Act as a whole.

In Garware Wall Ropes Ltd.(Supra), a case related to Government tenders, the Bombay High Court observed, inter alia, as follows:

"18. Perusal of the above two provisions clearly show that rights of the patentee under Section 48 of the Act are curtailed by provisions of Section 47 of the Act. But then careful reading of Section 47 of the Act shows that these rights are not curtailed in entirety even in respect of Government...It is noteworthy that all Sub-Sections of Section 47 i.e. (1) (2) (3) and (4) of the Act every time uses the terminology, namely, for the purpose 'merely of its own use'....21. Perusal of the above provisions show that the said terminology 'merely of its own use' has been deliberately used in Section 47 of the Act in contrast to the provisions of Sections 99 and 100 of the Patents Act, viz. for the purposes of Government, for the purposes of Central Government, State Government or Government undertaking. The words 'merely of its own use' have been utilized with a definite purpose and it cannot be said that the Parliament used different words in Sections 47, 99 and 100 of the Act for no reasons or for no intentions. In my opinion, all these words 'merely of its own use' would mean use for the purposes of the Government by any department of the Government and use by servants and agents of the Government in performance of their duties/in discharge of their duties assigned to them irrespective of who is benefited by such use. This would not include use by any other person like contractor of railways and the meaning is strictly restricted to the direct use by any department of the Government or its servants in the performance/in the discharge of their duties. This is all the more so, because for such use contemplated by Section 47 of the Act, no payment of royalty is at all contemplated to the patentee....23. For the above reasons, therefore, if any other interpretation is put.., the net result would be that a patentee inventing a patent by utilization of huge money and manpower involving scientists, technocrats and technicians would be left high and dry and this would definitely be detrimental to the encouragement of scientific and technical advances in the country." (emphasis supplied)

It may be pertinent to note that in a similar manner, an emphasis was placed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P (C) 1971/2014], and Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH & Anr. v. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [CS(COMM) No.1592/2016] on the words "solely for the purposes of.." used in Section 107A(a) of the Act which is commonly referred to as the "Bolar" exception. The Court in its judgment dated March 8, 2017 observed, inter alia, as follows:

"..It is thus 'the purpose for which the said acts are done' which distinguishes, whether the acts constitute infringement of patent or not. If the said purpose is within the confines of Section 107A, the acts so done would not constitute infringement and the patentee cannot prevent a non-patentee from doing them. However, if the purpose of doing the acts of making, using, selling or importing a patented invention is not solely for the purposes prescribed in Section 107A, the said acts would constitute infringement of patent and patentee can prevent non-patentee from doing them."

In another case of Low Heat Driers (P) Ltd. (Supra), the Kerala High Court, observed, inter alia, as follows:

"..It is true that Ext. A-17 patent is granted subject to the conditions specified under Section 47 of the Act which are really the superior right of user of the Government or the user for experiment or research or for imparting of instructions to pupils and the like and not for the commercial exploitation by any private individual.." (emphasis supplied)

Foreign Case Laws:

  1. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. & Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd. v. Airbus Helicopters, case No. B 15-20.554

As regards, foreign judicial precedents that may have persuasive value in addressing the above question, there is a recent decision dated July 5, 2017 issued by the Court of Cassation (Court of final appeal) in Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. & Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd. v. Airbus Helicopters, case No. B 15-20.554. In this case, the Court of Cassation dismissed the "prototype" defense raised by Bell Helicopter and deemed the presentation of a prototype as an offer for sale and thus an act of infringement.

Airbus Helicopters, filed an infringement case against Bell Helicopter, based on French patent No. FR 2749561 directed to a landing gear with skids. In 2005, U.S. group Bell Helicopter presented a first version of a helicopter called Bell 429 which incorporated the claimed landing gear to the public. The Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI) (High Court of Paris) in 2012, rejected all infringement claims, as well as all invalidity counterclaims. The Paris Cour d'appel (The Court of Appeal of Paris) in 2015, partly reversed, upholding the validity part of the first instance judgment but reaching a different conclusion on infringement. 

The Paris Cour d'appeal negatived Bell's contention that the first version of Bell 429 was a prototype and observed, inter alia, as follows:

"Offering for sale extends to any material operation aiming at putting a product in contact with potential customers, at preparing a commercial  launch, even if said product, which in the present case was not yet approved, could not be marketed. Indeed, this presentation of a competitior's product in France may turn away part of the competitior's customers...This offer, in this circumstances, is an act of infringement."

The Paris Cour d'appel also dismissed Bell's defense based on article L. 613-5 of the Intellectual Property Code, which provides a list of exemptions as follows:

"The rights afforded by the patent shall not extend to: 

a) Acts done privately and for non-commercial purposes; 

b) Acts done for experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of the patented invention. 

[...]"

The Paris Cour d'appel dismissed Bell's defense as Bell could not prove that any scientific experimentation had been performed. Therefore, the presentation was deemed commercial in nature.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the Paris Cour d'appel, Bell preferred an appeal before the Court of Cassation. However, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal. In appeal, Bell raised the "prototype" defense again according to the following two main points:

  1. A mere prototype [was presented] in a private context and within a narrow circle of specialists; the prototype had not yet flown, and was later subjected to several modifications; in the absence of any prior certification, it could not be marketed; [this] cannot correspond to putting on the market nor even to a preparatory act for such putting on the market.
  2. The acts committed related to the statutory experimental exception. The sole use of the landing gear could by itself aim at studying its behavior and therefore relate to the experimental exception.

However, as regards point 1, the Court of Cassation observed that the standard applied by the Cour d'appel was the right one, in particular because "the presentation of the product as a prototype can divert part of the clients of the patented product". Further, as regards, point 2, Court of Cassation refused to accept that the acts committed related to the statutory experimental exception, as no test and no act of research were performed when the first version of the landing gear was presented. Furthermore, the Court of Cassation observed that the absence of evidence of any experimental testing was sufficient to reject the experimental exception.

  1. Inhale Therapeutic Systems Inc. v. Quadrant Healthcare plc

In the case of Inhale Therapeutic Systems Inc. v. Quadrant Healthcare plc, [(2002) R.P.C. 21] the Patents Court had occasion to interpret Section 60(5) of the UK Patents Act, 1977 which reads as follows:

"(5) An act which, apart from this subsection, would constitute an infringement of a patent for an invention shall not do so if-

...

(b) it is done for experimental purposes relating to the subject-matter of the invention;"

The Court refused to regard exploitation of products intended to sell the technology to third parties as experimental which suggests that the acts entirely directed to commercial development rather than the attributes of the invention are not "experiments".

  1. Monsanto Co. v. Stauffer Chemical Co. and Anr.

Further, in Monsanto Co. v. Stauffer Chemical Co. and Anr., [(1985) RPC 515], the High Court of Justice – Patents Court held Section 60(5) not to extend to such field trials which were intended to widen the commercial market for the product. It was held that Section 60(5) limits experimental purposes to those relating to the subject matter of the invention. The High Court observed, inter alia, as follows:

"As a matter of language that limitation seems to me to restrict the paragraph to experiments directed to the patented invention as such, experiments such as testing whether a patented product can be made, or a patented article made to work, as described in the patent specification, or experiments to see whether the patented invention can be improved or testing the effect of a modification in some particular to see whether it is an improvement or not. But the limitation would, it seems to me, as a matter of language, exclude from the exemption of the paragraph use of a patented article or process in experiments to test or evaluate some other product or process—the purpose of any such experiments would not relate to the subject-matter of the patented invention.

Again, it seems to me that the limitation would exclude tests or trials having as their purpose achieving or extending the commercial acceptance of some commercial embodiment of the patented invention—such tests or trials would not, it seems to me, as a matter of language, be for purposes related to the subject matter of the patented invention. I am fortified in that view in that I feel it cannot have been the intention of the legislature to include in the exemptions from infringements of paragraph (b) of section 60(5) tests or trials intended, as their purpose, to promote the commercial prospects and acceptability of a product, ex hypothesi an infringing product, with a view to its wider or better marketing by the infringer when he should be free to market it, as, for instance, when the patent expires."

  1. CoreValve Inc v. Edwards Lifesciences AG & Anr.

The experimental use defence was also considered in a decision, CoreValve Inc v Edwards Lifesciences AG & Anr. [(2009) FSR 8], wherein the Chancery Division, Patents Court observed that an experimental use defence would not have been available, since CoreValve had mixed purposes in conducting its experiments and the experimental purpose was not the preponderant one. It was observed that if the envisaged commercial gain is immediately realisable, the exception will not apply. In this case, the experiment was found to have been done primarily to 'generate revenue'. As such, the experimental use defence failed.

Conclusion

Based on the above, it appears that Section 47(3) defence would be applicable in the given scenario only if it is shown by way of evidence that the subject activity is limited to experimentation or research and does not involve commercial exploitation or use of the patented technology.

In the absence of judicial precedents in India directly related to the above issue and the lack of clarity on the scope of the exception, it may not be that easy to predict with certainty whether Section 47(3) defence would be applicable in the given or other possible similar scenarios. Nevertheless, it is evident that Section 47(3) is relevant in the Indian scenario as the public policy objective behind this exception is to ensure that the patent rights should not hinder experimentation or research or technical education and accordingly it may be given a wide scope and ambit by the Courts in India. Despite this seemingly broad scope of protection, the exact contours, reach and ambit of the exemption provided by Section 47(3) still remain not completely clear and any inquiry into its applicability remains highly fact-specific.

It is hoped that the day will come soon when a fitting case involving interpretation of Section 47(3) will reach the High Courts, allowing jurisprudence on the subject to be revisited and statutory provisions to be interpreted in a manner suited to the true intent behind their promulgation, thereby providing much-needed clarity and the legal certainty on the issues involved, benefitting both patentees and third parties.

Footnote

1 "27. Rights of a patentee. – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a patent granted either before or after the commencement of this Act, shall confer upon the patentee:

  1. where the patent is for an article or substance, the exclusive right by himself, his agents or licensees to make, use, exercise, sell or distribute such article or substance in India;
  2. where a patent is for a process of manufacturing an article or substance the exclusive right by himself, his agents or licensees to use or exercise the process in India and of using or selling in India articles or substances made by such process and of authorising others so to do.
  1. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the making or using of a patented machine or apparatus or other article, or the use of a patented process or the use of an article made by the use of the patented process, machine or apparatus for the purposes merely of experiment or research including the imparting of instruction to pupils and not by way of commercial use, shall not be deemed to constitute an infringement of the rights conferred on a patentee by this Act."
  2. The rights conferred on the patentee by this section shall be exercisable only subject to the provisions of any other law in force.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions