INTRODUCTION
We are pleased to present the latest edition of our IP Law page, sharing important updates, key developments, and practical insights on Intellectual Property, all tailored to help you stay updated in the field of Indian Patent Law. Curated by our IPR Law Practice Group, the page is to keep you updated about the latest developments in this dynamic field.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT UPHOLDS PATENT ELIGIBILITY AMID PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS
In a significant ruling on April 30, 2025, the Calcutta High Court in ITC Limited vs. Controller of Patents clarified the balance between patent grants and public health measures. The court emphasized that “patents are granted to encourage inventions and ensure their commercial implementation in India without delay. However, patent grants do not restrict the Central Government’s authority to protect public health.”
Case Background
ITC Limited filed a patent application (No. 685/KOLNP/2015) for “A Device and Method for Generating and Delivery of a Nicotine Aerosol to a User.” The Indian Patent Office rejected the application, citing Section 3(b) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, which prohibits patents for inventions whose commercial exploitation could seriously harm human life or health.
The Controller’s refusal order referenced studies by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), which labelled nicotine and nicotine sulphates as hazardous. The ICMR’s white papers also dismissed claims that e-cigarettes aid in quitting tobacco.
Additionally, the order noted the Prohibition of E-Cigarettes Act, 2019, which bans the production, sale, and distribution of ecigarettes in India.
Key Observations by the Court
- Section 3(b) Interpretation: The court ruled that Section 3(b) is guided by the “principle of intent” and does not categorically deem all nicotine or tobacco-related inventions non-patentable.
- Patent Office Manual: The court noted that the Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure does not list tobacco, smoking, or nicotine-related inventions as falling under Section 3(b).
- International Treaties: Referencing Article 27(2) of the TRIPS Agreement, the court highlighted that patents cannot be denied solely on grounds of public harm from commercial exploitation. Similarly, Article 4quater of the Paris Convention prohibits refusing patents based on domestic restrictions on the sale of patented products.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court held that granting a patent is distinct from government regulations controlling the production or sale of patented products for public health reasons. The court remanded the case to the Indian Patent Office, directing a fresh evaluation by a different Controller.
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.
