Intellectual Property Rights MCQs for Judiciary, Page 4

Correct answer: C. A combination of: design registration under the Designs Act, 2000 for the fabric print applied to garments (if it meets the industrial article criteria); trade mark registration for the brand name and possibly the print as a distinctive mark if it has acquired distinctiveness; copyright protection for the original artistic work in the print (before industrial scale production exceeds fifty units per Section 15(2)); and patent protection for the weaving process (if it meets novelty, inventive step, and industrial application requirements)

A comprehensive IP protection strategy for a fashion company's products may involve multiple overlapping forms of IP, each protecting a different aspect of the commercial value created. The fabric print as an artistic design attracts copyright as an original artistic work, but once applied industrially to more than fifty garments, the copyright in the design ceases under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and design registration under the Designs Act, 2000 becomes the primary protection for the aesthetic features. The brand name under which the garments are sold is protectable as a trade mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999; the print itself may also become registrable as a trade mark if it acquires distinctiveness as a source identifier. The proprietary weaving technique, if it is a novel and non-obvious process capable of industrial application, may be protectable under the Patents Act, 1970 as a process patent. Understanding the interaction between these different regimes - including how Section 15(2) operates and how design registration relates to copyright - is essential for building a robust IP portfolio in creative industries.

Source note: Designs Act 2000; Copyright Act 1957; Trade Marks Act 1999; Patents Act 1970

Correct answer: A. Importing and selling in India patented goods that were first placed on a foreign market by the patent holder without the patent holder's consent for Indian distribution; under national exhaustion, only first sale within India exhausts the patent rights, so parallel imports of goods sold in other countries by the patent holder can still be blocked

The distinction between national and international exhaustion determines whether a patent (or trade mark or copyright) holder can use IP rights to prevent parallel imports. Under national exhaustion: IP rights are exhausted only when the goods are first sold within the domestic territory; goods first sold abroad by or with the consent of the rights holder can still be blocked from import by the rights holder using their domestic IP rights. Under international exhaustion (adopted in India for trade marks by Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung): once goods are placed on any market in the world by or with the rights holder's consent, the IP rights are exhausted globally and cannot be used to prevent subsequent import and resale. For patents, India's position on exhaustion is less clearly settled than for trade marks. Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the parallel import provision) allows import of patented pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products if they are produced under a patent in the exporting country, suggesting a degree of international exhaustion for these categories, but the general position across all patent sectors remains complex.

Source note: Sections 107A, 48, Patents Act 1970; Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung; TRIPS Article 6

Correct answer: C. Comply with its existing TRIPS obligations and maintain IP protection at least at the TRIPS minimum standard; FTAs may include cooperation provisions on IP enforcement and administration, but India has generally resisted 'TRIPS-plus' provisions in FTAs (provisions requiring IP standards higher than TRIPS minimums) to preserve policy space for public health, traditional knowledge, and access to medicines

India has historically been cautious about incorporating 'TRIPS-plus' intellectual property obligations in its bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, recognising that such obligations could constrain its policy space in areas such as pharmaceutical patent protection, compulsory licensing, and access to genetic resources. TRIPS-plus provisions are IP standards that go beyond the minimum obligations set by the TRIPS Agreement - such as extending patent terms beyond twenty years (patent term extension for regulatory delays), restricting compulsory licensing conditions, or requiring data exclusivity for pharmaceutical regulatory data. India has resisted these in negotiations with the EU, USA, and other developed country partners. In FTAs like India-UAE CEPA (2022) and India-Australia ECTA (2022), IP chapters typically include cooperation provisions on IP administration, enforcement cooperation, and information sharing without requiring TRIPS-plus obligations. India's defensive posture on IP in trade negotiations reflects its experience with the TRIPS Agreement and the critical importance of maintaining flexibility for public health and access to medicines.

Source note: India-UAE CEPA 2022; TRIPS-plus debate; India FTA negotiations

Correct answer: D. Creating awareness about IP rights and promoting creativity and innovation across sectors; streamlining and strengthening IP administration by modernising IP offices, reducing pendency, and improving examination quality; and building a strong and effective IP enforcement and adjudication system

The National Intellectual Property Rights Policy, 2016 was launched by the Government of India's DPIIT on 12 May 2016 as the first comprehensive national IP policy. The policy identified seven key objectives: (1) IP awareness: outreach and promotion; (2) generation of IPs; (3) legal and legislative framework; (4) administration and management; (5) commercialisation of IP; (6) enforcement and adjudication; and (7) human capital development. The policy aimed to promote innovation and creativity across all sectors of the Indian economy, modernise IP administration (reducing the backlog at the Patent and Trade Marks offices), and create a robust enforcement framework. Under the policy's implementation, the Indian Patent Office significantly increased examination output, digital infrastructure was upgraded, and the first National IP Awards scheme was established. The policy's tagline was 'Creative India; Innovative India.' The abolition of the IPAB occurred subsequently through the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, not as part of the 2016 Policy.

Source note: National IPR Policy, 2016; DPIIT

Correct answer: A. Minting an nft does not automatically transfer the copyright in the underlying artwork to the nft purchaser; the nft represents ownership of the token (a digital certificate of provenance on the blockchain) and not necessarily the copyright in the artwork, unless the nft transaction terms expressly include a copyright assignment in writing (as required by Section 19(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957); an nft purchaser may own the token but not the right to reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from the artwork

The relationship between NFT ownership and copyright in the underlying digital asset is one of the most important emerging legal issues in intellectual property law. In Indian law, the Copyright Act, 1957 is clear that any assignment of copyright must be in writing and signed by the assignor (Section 19(1)). An NFT transaction - even one involving payment of substantial sums - does not automatically transfer copyright unless the transaction terms expressly include a written copyright assignment. In most NFT transactions (such as OpenSea or Rarible marketplace purchases), what is transferred is the token itself: a unique digital certificate on the blockchain confirming ownership of that specific token. The copyright in the underlying artwork continues to vest in the original artist unless there is an explicit, written contractual assignment. This means that the NFT purchaser generally has no right to reproduce, adapt, or publicly display the artwork beyond personal use. Artists, NFT platforms, and purchasers in India must therefore pay careful attention to the contractual terms of NFT transactions to clarify the IP rights being conveyed.

Source note: Section 19(1), Copyright Act 1957; NFT and copyright; digital IP frontier

Correct answer: B. Potentially infringe the copyright in the open-source software, because open-source licensing grants a conditional licence to use the code; failure to comply with the conditions (such as source code disclosure under a copyleft licence) means the licence has been breached, and the use of the code is therefore without authorisation - constituting copyright infringement

Open-source software (OSS) is protected by copyright: the code is an original literary work under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957. OSS licences (such as the GPL, MIT, Apache) are copyright licences that grant users the right to use, copy, modify, and distribute the software subject to specified conditions. The conditions may include: attribution of the original authors (MIT, Apache); disclosure of source code for derivative works (GPL's copyleft requirement); or restriction on commercial use. If a user incorporates GPL-licensed code into proprietary software and distributes it without releasing the source code (as the GPL requires), they have violated the conditions of the licence. Under copyright law, the licence condition breach means the licence is vitiated and the use is therefore without authorisation - constituting copyright infringement. This is the majority view internationally (endorsed by US courts) and is consistent with Indian copyright law's treatment of conditional licences. The alternative view (only breach of contract, not copyright infringement) has been largely rejected. Section 63B of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides criminal liability for computer programme copyright infringement, potentially applicable to deliberate violations.

Source note: Section 2(o), Copyright Act 1957; Open source licensing principles

Correct answer: C. To serve as a prior art reference for patent offices worldwide, enabling patent examiners to identify and cite traditional knowledge as prior art when examining patent applications that claim inventions based on Indian traditional knowledge, thereby preventing the grant of bio-piracy patents

The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) was established jointly by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the Ministry of AYUSH following India's experience with bio-piracy incidents such as the Neem (EPO patent revoked after India's intervention), Turmeric (US patent revoked), and Basmati rice (US patent challenged) cases. The TKDL database systematically transcribes and digitalises information about traditional medicinal knowledge from classical Indian texts (Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, Yoga) in a format accessible to patent examiners at international patent offices. The database has been made available to the European Patent Office (EPO), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other international patent offices, enabling patent examiners to search for and cite traditional knowledge as prior art during examination. The TKDL has been credited with preventing numerous bio-piracy patent applications from proceeding to grant. It functions as a proactive defensive measure: by establishing that traditional knowledge is documented prior art, it prevents applicants from falsely claiming that their 'discoveries' of traditional uses are novel inventions.

Source note: TKDL; Section 3(p), Patents Act 1970; bio-piracy case history

Correct answer: C. Freeze the defendant's assets up to the value of the plaintiff's estimated damages claim, to prevent dissipation of assets before judgment so that any eventual damages award can be satisfied; this is granted where the plaintiff can show a good arguable case and a real risk that the defendant will dissipate assets to defeat judgment

A Mareva injunction (originating from Mareva Compania Naviera SA v. International Bulkcarriers SA [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep 509) is a freezing order that prevents a defendant from dissipating their assets - typically up to the value of the plaintiff's claim - before judgment so that the defendant has assets available to satisfy any eventual award of damages. In IP cases, this is particularly relevant in large-scale counterfeiting or piracy cases where the defendant may be a fly-by-night operator who might quickly move or hide assets upon learning of the suit. Indian courts have the power to grant Mareva injunctions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in arbitration-related matters) and under Order 39 CPC (in civil suits) by analogy. The requirements for a Mareva injunction are: (a) a good arguable case on the merits; (b) a real risk that the defendant will dissipate assets to defeat any judgment; and (c) the balance of convenience favouring the order.

Source note: Order 39, CPC; IP enforcement jurisprudence

Correct answer: B. A third party (who is not itself an infringer but has been innocently mixed up in the wrongdoing, such as an isp hosting infringing content or a payment gateway processing payments for counterfeit goods websites) to disclose information in its possession that reveals the identity of the actual wrongdoer

A Norwich Pharmacal order is a discovery order directed at a non-defendant third party who has been innocently involved in the commission of a wrong and is in a position to disclose information about the identity of the actual wrongdoer. In IP enforcement, this is highly relevant in online piracy cases: the IP rights holder may know that a particular IP address has been downloading and distributing infringing content, but needs the Internet Service Provider (which holds subscriber information) to identify the actual user behind that IP address. A Norwich Pharmacal application to the court requires the ISP to disclose the subscriber's identity. Similarly, in counterfeit goods cases, a payment processor (such as PayPal or a bank) that processed payments to a counterfeiting website may be ordered to disclose the account holder's identity. Indian courts have applied principles analogous to Norwich Pharmacal orders in IP enforcement matters, relying on the court's inherent jurisdiction and Order 26 of the CPC to facilitate disclosure of third-party information in appropriate cases.

Source note: Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners; IP enforcement jurisprudence; Order 26, CPC

Correct answer: A. An imminent and apprehended future infringement that has not yet occurred but where the plaintiff can demonstrate, on credible evidence, that there is a real and immediate threat of such infringement; the court acts preventively rather than remedially

A quia timet injunction is an anticipatory injunction granted to prevent an apprehended wrong before it occurs. In IP cases, this type of injunction is sought where the plaintiff can demonstrate that the defendant is on the verge of committing an infringing act - such as imminently launching a product that will infringe a patent or trade mark - but the infringement has not yet taken place. The standard for granting a quia timet injunction is high: the plaintiff must show a real and immediate threat of infringement, not merely a speculative or hypothetical one. Courts require evidence of clear intention or imminent preparation to commit the infringing act. In trade mark cases, a quia timet injunction may be sought before a competitor launches a product bearing an infringing mark; in patent cases, it may be sought when a competitor is known to be in the final stages of launching a product that would infringe the plaintiff's patent. The practical significance is that it allows rights holders to prevent harm before it occurs rather than being limited to seeking retrospective damages.

Source note: IP Enforcement; Order 39, CPC; IP injunction jurisprudence

Correct answer: A. Patents, designs, and trade marks; the Copyright Office functions under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade but is headed by the Registrar of Copyrights, while gi registration is handled by the gi Registry in Chennai

The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) is the apex administrative authority for industrial property rights (patents, designs, and trade marks) in India, functioning under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The CGPDTM oversees the Indian Patent Office (with offices in Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, and Chennai), the Trade Marks Registry (Mumbai headquarters with offices in other cities), and the Designs Registry. The Copyright Office, though also under DPIIT, functions separately under the Registrar of Copyrights. Geographical Indication registrations are handled by the GI Registry located in Chennai. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which was the appellate body for decisions of the CGPDTM and the Copyright Board, was abolished by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, and its functions have been transferred to the respective High Courts. This means that appeals from patent, trade mark, and design decisions now lie to the High Courts directly.

Source note: Patents Act 1970; Trade Marks Act 1999; DPIIT administrative framework

Correct answer: A. Each form of IP protection is calibrated to a specific type of creation and commercial interest: patents protect technical inventions (limited term, full disclosure required); copyright protects original creative expression (long term, no formality required); trade marks protect commercial source identifiers (potentially perpetual, must be in use); designs protect aesthetic industrial features (short term); and GIs protect community-based geographical quality attributes (renewable, community right)

The various forms of intellectual property protection available in India each serve a distinct purpose and are calibrated with different requirements, durations, and scope to match the nature of the creation being protected. Patents protect technical inventions (products or processes): they require full public disclosure (in exchange for which the state grants a limited monopoly), are available for twenty years from filing, are exhausted at the end of the term, and are lost if not renewed. Copyright protects original creative expression in literary, artistic, dramatic, musical, and other works: it arises automatically without formality, lasts for the author's life plus sixty years, and does not require commercial use to be maintained. Trade marks protect distinctive commercial identifiers (names, logos, get-up) that indicate the commercial source of goods or services: they can be maintained indefinitely through continued use and renewal, but are vulnerable to loss through non-use or genericide. Designs protect aesthetic industrial features of articles: they require registration, have a maximum fifteen-year term, and must appeal to the eye. Geographical indications protect quality attributes of goods linked to a specific place of origin: they are collective rights, renewable indefinitely, and belong to the community of producers in the designated region. Understanding these distinctions is essential for selecting the appropriate form of IP protection for any given creation.

Source note: Comprehensive; Patents Act 1970; Copyright Act 1957; Trade Marks Act 1999; Designs Act 2000; GI Act 1999

Correct answer: B. Twelve months from the date of the first filing in any Paris Union member country

Article 4C of the Paris Convention establishes that the period of priority for patents and utility models is twelve months from the date of the first application in any Paris Union member state. This means that an inventor who files a patent application in any Paris Union country (India, for example) has twelve months from that first filing date to file corresponding patent applications in other Paris Union member states, claiming the benefit of the first filing date as the priority date. Any applications filed in the second and subsequent countries within the twelve-month window are treated as if they had been filed on the date of the first application, giving them priority over any competing applications filed in the intervening period. Section 133 of the Patents Act, 1970 implements this right of priority for applications to the Indian Patent Office by convention applicants from other Paris Union countries. The twelve-month priority period allows inventors to test the commercial viability of their invention in one country before committing to the expense of multi-country filing.

Source note: Article 4, Paris Convention 1883; Section 133, Patents Act 1970

Correct answer: B. In writing and duly executed by the parties; the assignment is enforceable between the parties even before it is registered, but registration under Section 69 is necessary for the assignee to sue for infringement

Section 68 of the Patents Act, 1970 provides that an assignment of a patent, or any right therein, is not valid unless it is in writing and duly executed. The assignment creates a valid contractual obligation as between the parties to the assignment once it is in writing and signed, but under Section 69, for the assignee to take proceedings in their own name (such as an infringement action), the assignment must be registered with the Patent Office. Section 69(1) provides that every assignment of a patent or of a share in a patent shall be registered in the Patent Register, and on such registration, the assignee shall be deemed to be the registered proprietor. Failure to register does not render the assignment invalid as between the parties but prevents the assignee from taking infringement proceedings in their own name until registration is completed. Licences (as opposed to assignments) are also governed by similar provisions: licences of any description may be granted and must be in writing to be enforceable, but there is no statutory requirement that all licences be registered, although registration is advisable to put third parties on notice.

Source note: Sections 68, 69, Patents Act 1970

Correct answer: C. The best method of performing the invention known to the applicant, ensuring that the public can fully work the invention upon expiry of the patent; failure to disclose the best method constitutes insufficient disclosure and is a ground for revocation under Section 64

Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970 imposes the fundamental disclosure obligation that lies at the heart of the patent bargain: in exchange for a time-limited monopoly, the inventor must fully disclose the invention to the public, enabling a person skilled in the relevant field to reproduce and work the invention. The 'best method' or 'best mode' requirement specifically mandates that the applicant disclose not merely a working method but the best method known to them at the time of filing. This prevents inventors from obtaining a patent while keeping secret the best way to implement the invention, thereby effectively extending their monopoly beyond the patent term. Failure to disclose the best method constitutes insufficient disclosure and is a ground for revocation under Section 64(1)(h) of the Patents Act, 1970. This requirement ensures that the patent's contribution to the public domain (the complete specification that becomes public after the patent expires) is genuinely useful and not merely a paper description that conceals the most valuable aspects of the technology.

Source note: Sections 10(4) and 64(1)(h), Patents Act 1970

Correct answer: C. Bio-piracy: the appropriation and patenting of India's traditional medicinal knowledge and biodiversity-based innovations by foreign entities without recognition or sharing of benefits with the Indian communities that developed and preserved this knowledge

Section 3(p) of the Patents Act, 1970 (inserted by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002) specifically addresses the problem of bio-piracy, which had emerged as a major concern for India and other megadiverse developing nations in the 1990s. The provision explicitly excludes from patentability any invention that amounts to traditional knowledge or a duplication of known properties of traditionally known components or combinations thereof. This exclusion was necessitated by high-profile cases of bio-piracy such as patents being granted in the United States for Basmati rice (RiceTec case) and for turmeric's wound-healing properties (which was revoked after India intervened), where knowledge from Indian traditional systems of medicine and agriculture was appropriated and patented in foreign jurisdictions. India responded by creating the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), a database of traditional medicinal knowledge in machine-readable format, to provide patent offices with prior art references to prevent the grant of bio-piracy patents. Section 3(p) domestically prevents such patents from being granted in India.

Source note: Section 3(p), Patents Act 1970; TKDL initiative

Correct answer: B. Obtain prior approval of the National Biodiversity Authority (nba) before making such application for IP rights

Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 provides that no person shall apply for any intellectual property right, by whatever name called, in or outside India for any invention based on any research or information on a biological resource obtained from India, without obtaining the previous approval of the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA). This access and benefit-sharing (ABS) requirement reflects India's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing. The NBA's approval process involves assessment of the proposed intellectual property rights and negotiation of benefit-sharing arrangements with the local communities that are the custodians of the biological resources. Failure to obtain NBA approval is a ground for revocation of the patent under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act. Section 3(p) of the Patents Act also independently excludes from patentability inventions that amount to traditional knowledge, providing a double layer of protection against bio-piracy.

Source note: Section 6, Biological Diversity Act 2002; Section 3(p), Patents Act 1970; CBD and Nagoya Protocol

Correct answer: D. A process of preparing a live vaccine (involving live microorganisms) is patentable as a 'process' of manufacturing, provided it involves an inventive step, and the mere fact that the end product of the process is a living substance does not render the process unpatentable

In Dimminaco AG v. Controller of Patents (2002 Cal HC), the Calcutta High Court addressed a foundational question in Indian patent law concerning biotechnology: whether a process for preparing a live vaccine involving living microorganisms could be patented under the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that such a process is patentable as an industrial process for manufacturing a product (the vaccine), and the fact that the product is or involves living organisms does not render the process non-patentable. The court noted that Section 3(j) explicitly excludes 'essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals' but does not exclude microorganisms per se (consistent with TRIPS Article 27(3)(b), which requires member states to provide patent protection for microorganisms and non-essentially biological processes for producing plants and animals). This case opened the door for biotechnology process patents in India and has been consistently followed. It must be read alongside Section 3(c) (which excludes naturally occurring living things) and Section 3(b) (morality), creating a framework where naturally occurring microorganisms are excluded but human-made modified microorganisms or processes using them may be patentable.

Source note: Section 3(j), Patents Act 1970; Dimminaco AG v. Controller of Patents, 2002 Cal HC

Correct answer: D. Both the Patents Act, 1970 and the Competition Act, 2002 can apply simultaneously to the conduct of a patent holder; the CCI has jurisdiction to investigate whether the exercise of patent rights amounts to an abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act; the Patents Act does not exclude competition law jurisdiction, and a patentee is not immune from competition law scrutiny merely because the conduct relates to the exercise of patent rights

In Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Competition Commission of India (Delhi High Court, 2016, upheld on appeal in 2023), the Delhi High Court addressed the intersection between the Patents Act, 1970 and the Competition Act, 2002. The court held that the Patents Act and the Competition Act operate as complementary (not mutually exclusive) statutes, and the CCI has concurrent jurisdiction to investigate allegedly anti-competitive conduct by patent holders, including SEP holders alleged to be seeking supra-FRAND royalties. The grant of a patent does not confer immunity from competition law: the Competition Act applies to the exercise of intellectual property rights in the market, and monopolistic or exploitative licensing practices are within the CCI's jurisdiction under Section 4. This dual jurisdiction (civil courts for infringement and validity, CCI for competition law aspects) represents the equilibrium between the IP system's grant of limited monopoly and competition law's prohibition on monopolistic abuse.

Source note: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. CCI (Delhi High Court, 2016/2023); Section 4, Competition Act 2002

Correct answer: C. The patented drug (Sorafenib Tosylate or nexavar, used for kidney and liver cancer) was not reasonably available to the public at an affordable price; Bayer had not worked the patent in India to a sufficient extent; and the public interest requirement for accessibility of a life-saving medicine compelled the grant of a compulsory licence under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970

In Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation (Compulsory Licence Application No. 1/2011, decided 2013), the Controller General of Patents granted India's first compulsory licence for Bayer's patented drug Sorafenib Tosylate (sold as Nexavar), used in the treatment of kidney and liver cancer. The application was decided under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970, which allows compulsory licences to be granted where: (a) the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied; (b) the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price; or (c) the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India. The Controller found that all three grounds were satisfied: Bayer's drug was priced at approximately rupees 2.8 lakh per month, placing it entirely beyond the reach of most cancer patients in India; the patent was not being worked to a sufficient extent in India; and public health considerations weighed heavily in favour of granting the licence. Natco was directed to manufacture and sell the drug at approximately rupees 8,880 per month, with a royalty payment to Bayer.

Source note: Section 84, Patents Act 1970; Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation (2013)

Correct answer: D. Section 92 allows the Central Government to issue a notification enabling the Controller General to grant compulsory licences without the three-year waiting period that applies under Section 84, and without requiring the applicant to demonstrate prior unsuccessful attempts to obtain a voluntary licence; it is triggered by circumstances of national emergency, extreme urgency, or public non-commercial use

Section 92 of the Patents Act, 1970 provides an expedited compulsory licensing pathway for circumstances of national emergency or extreme urgency, including a public health crisis. The key procedural differences from Section 84 are: (a) no three-year waiting period from the date of patent grant (Section 84 requires the patent to have been in force for three years before an application for compulsory licence can be filed); (b) no requirement for prior negotiation or proof of unsuccessful attempts to obtain a voluntary licence; (c) the Central Government issues a notification declaring the emergency, which then enables the Controller to grant licences. Section 92A further provides for compulsory licensing for export of patented pharmaceutical products to countries with insufficient manufacturing capacity, implementing the WTO's Doha Declaration mechanism (the 'paragraph 6 decision'). During the COVID-19 pandemic, there were significant discussions in India about invoking Section 92 for COVID vaccines and treatments, although ultimately the government did not formally invoke the provision, preferring voluntary licensing and technology transfer arrangements.

Source note: Sections 92, 92A, Patents Act 1970; Doha Declaration

Correct answer: C. The claimed invention involves technical contribution and its application results in a further technical effect beyond the normal physical interactions between a computer programme and the hardware on which it runs; the key word 'per se' in Section 3(k) means that a computer programme that is part of a novel technical solution with a specific technical effect is not excluded

The exclusion of 'a computer programme per se' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 has been interpreted through the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRI Guidelines) issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. The key phrase is 'per se': a computer programme 'as such' (that is, as an abstract series of instructions) is not patentable. However, if a computer programme, when applied, results in a further technical effect going beyond the normal physical interactions between a programme and the computer hardware (for example, controlling a machine to perform a specific industrial process, increasing efficiency of data transmission, or producing a specific technical outcome in the real world), the overall invention (hardware plus software combination achieving a specific technical effect) may be patentable. The CRI Guidelines thus distinguish between abstract or purely functional software (not patentable) and software that is tightly integrated with hardware to achieve a specific technical effect (potentially patentable).

Source note: Section 3(k), Patents Act 1970; CRI Guidelines, CGPDTM

Correct answer: A. The invention was not excluded because it resulted in a tangible 'technical effect' - namely enhanced security preventing unauthorised transactions - going beyond the normal physical interactions between a computer programme and hardware; the court emphasised that business-related terminology in patent claims does not automatically render the invention a 'business method, ' and the claimed invention must be examined as a whole to determine whether it provides a technical solution to a technical problem

In Comviva Technologies Ltd. v. Controller General of Patents (Delhi High Court, 2024), the court set aside the Patent Office's rejection of Comviva's application for a computer-related invention in the financial technology sector. The Patent Office had rejected the application as falling within the exclusion of 'computer programme per se or algorithms' under Section 3(k). The court disagreed, holding that the invention was not a 'computer programme per se' because when applied, it produced a specific technical effect - enhanced security in electronic payment systems preventing timing attacks - that went beyond the merely mathematical or computational. The court emphasised that the presence of business-related language or concepts in the patent claims does not automatically characterise an invention as an excluded 'business method'; the correct approach is to examine the invention as a whole and ask whether it provides a technical solution to a technical problem. This decision is consistent with the CRI Guidelines and further clarifies the post-Bilski trajectory of computer-related invention patentability in India.

Source note: Comviva Technologies Ltd. v. Controller General of Patents (Delhi High Court, 2024); Section 3(k), Patents Act 1970

Correct answer: D. Revocation of the patent under Section 64(1)(m) of the Patents Act, 1970, because non-disclosure of information required by Section 8 is an independent ground for revocation of a granted patent

Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970 imposes a disclosure obligation on every person who files a patent application in India to inform the Controller General of Patents of the details of all corresponding applications for patents filed in any other country, including the title, claims, date of filing, and the result of each application (including grounds for any refusal or acceptance). This duty is a continuing one: the applicant must provide updates as the proceedings in other countries progress. The disclosure requirement serves the purpose of enabling the Indian Patent Office to consider the prior art and examination results from other jurisdictions, thereby improving the quality and consistency of examination. Failure to comply with Section 8 is expressly made a ground for revocation of a patent under Section 64(1)(m) of the Patents Act, 1970. In several post-grant opposition and revocation proceedings before the Patent Office and IPAB, failure to comply with the Section 8 disclosure obligation has been successfully invoked as a ground for invalidating patents, making this one of the most practically significant compliance obligations for patent holders in India.

Source note: Sections 8 and 64(1)(m), Patents Act 1970