The case of Gunjan Sinha (a) Kanishk Sinha and Anr. Vs. Union of India represents a significant judicial exploration into the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, which governs the term of a patent in India. This intra-court appeal, adjudicated by the Calcutta High Court, arose from a challenge to the dismissal of a writ petition that sought to declare Section 53 ultra vires the Constitution of India, citing conflicts with Section 11A(7) of the same Act and alleged violations of fundamental rights.

The appellants, appearing in person, contended that the statutory framework unfairly prejudiced patentees by imposing renewal fees for periods when the patent was not granted, thereby raising questions about fairness, legislative intent, and constitutional protections. This case study delves into the intricate factual and procedural background, the legal issues at stake, the submissions of the parties, judicial reasoning, and the broader implications of the court's decision on patent law in India.

Detailed Factual Background
The dispute originates from a patent application filed by Gunjan Sinha (Appellant No. 1) on May 2, 2005, for an invention titled "A Fuel Cell System and an Efficient Eco-Friendly Vehicle Mounted with Fuel Cell System." The patent, bearing number 254875, was granted on December 28, 2012, after a delay of over seven years, with a term of 20 years effective from the date of application, as stipulated under Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. By a deed of assignment dated July 20, 2021, Appellant No. 1 assigned the entire patent share to Appellant No. 2, but an addendum agreement dated June 8, 2022, redistributed the shares equally between the two appellants. The appellants' primary grievance was the prolonged delay in the grant of the patent, which they argued curtailed their ability to exploit the patent effectively.

They contended that Section 53, which mandates the patent term to commence from the date of application, coupled with Section 11A(7), which restricts infringement proceedings until the patent is granted, created an inequitable situation. Additionally, the appellants challenged the requirement to pay renewal fees under Rule 80 for the period between 2005 and 2012, when the patent was not yet granted, alleging it constituted double jeopardy and violated Article 22 of the Constitution. The appellants further claimed that the government's failure to enforce an earlier court directive from the Patna High Court to grant the patent within two months exacerbated their plight, prompting contempt proceedings.

Detailed Procedural Background
The appellants' legal journey began with a writ petition (WPA No. 1963 of 2022) filed before the Calcutta High Court, seeking an extension of the patent term by 15 years as compensation for alleged harassment and delays, alongside a prayer to rescind Section 53. This petition was dismissed on June 17, 2022, with the court granting liberty to claim damages for the delay in granting the patent. Aggrieved, Appellant No. 1 appealed to the Division Bench, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 53.

The appeal was dismissed on September 15, 2022, with permission to seek a review. A subsequent review application (RVW 224 of 2022) was filed but dismissed on March 14, 2023. Undeterred, the appellants filed another writ petition (WPA No. 8691 of 2023) before a Single Bench, requesting a mandamus to compel the government to decide their representation for amending or withdrawing Section 53, and a certiorari to quash Section 53 as ultra vires. During these proceedings, Appellant No. 2 was impleaded via an intervention application on April 30, 2024.

The Single Bench, on May 7, 2024, dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 53. This dismissal prompted the present intra-court appeal (MAT 903 of 2024), filed before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das.

Issues Involved in the Case
The case presented several critical legal issues for adjudication. The foremost question was whether Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, which fixes the patent term from the date of application, is ultra vires the Constitution of India, particularly when read with Section 11A(7), which grants limited rights to applicants post-publication but bars infringement suits until the patent is granted.

Another issue was whether the requirement to pay renewal fees for the period before the patent grant constituted double jeopardy or violated Article 22 of the Constitution. The court also had to determine whether the appellants' claims were barred by res judicata due to prior dismissed petitions seeking similar relief. Additionally, the court examined whether the appellants had established sufficient grounds to challenge the vires of a statutory provision and whether judicial intervention could extend to directing legislative amendments.

Detailed Submission of Parties
The appellants, appearing in person, argued that the seven-year delay in granting their patent (from May 2, 2005, to December 28, 2012) effectively reduced their ability to exploit the patent, as the 20-year term commenced from the application date under Section 53. They contended that Section 11A(7), which grants provisional rights post-publication but prohibits infringement proceedings until the patent is granted, rendered these rights illusory, as patentees could not enforce their intellectual property during the pre-grant period.

The appellants further challenged the renewal fees levied under Rule 80 for the period from 2005 to 2012, arguing that paying fees for an ungranted patent was unjust and constituted double jeopardy, violating Article 22. They relied on a representation dated December 28, 2021, to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which went unanswered, and cited prior judicial directives from the Patna High Court that were allegedly not enforced.

To bolster their case, the appellants referenced three Delhi High Court judgments: Ferid Allani v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 7/2014, decided on December 12, 2019), Proctor and Gamble Company v. Controller of Patents and Designs (decided on December 8, year not specified), and Nitto Denko Corporation v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 3742/2013, report dated February 27, 2014). These cases, they argued, highlighted judicial recognition of delays in patent processing and the need for compensatory mechanisms.

The respondents countered that the appellants' claims were barred by res judicata, as similar reliefs were sought and dismissed in WPA No. 1963 of 2022, its appeal, and the subsequent review application. They argued that Sections 11A(7) and 53 operate in distinct domains: the former provides interim rights during the pre-grant phase, while the latter governs the patent term post-grant.

The respondents emphasized that the proviso to Section 11A(7) explicitly bars infringement suits until the patent is granted, aligning with the statutory scheme and the TRIPS Agreement. They further contended that the appellants failed to demonstrate any constitutional infirmity in Section 53 or specific prejudice caused by the delay, noting that the patent term was extended to 20 years under the 2005 amendment, enhancing patentee rights. The respondents dismissed the appellants' reliance on the cited judgments, arguing their inapplicability due to differing factual contexts.

Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited by Parties and Their Context
The appellants relied on three Delhi High Court judgments to support their arguments, but the court found them inapplicable due to distinct factual and legal contexts. In Ferid Allani v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 7/2014, decided on December 12, 2019), the petitioner challenged the refusal of a patent application on grounds of lack of novelty and patentability. The Delhi High Court remanded the matter for re-examination, emphasizing the need for a fair assessment of inventive steps.

The Calcutta High Court noted that this case dealt with patent refusal, not the validity of Section 53 or delays in grant, rendering it irrelevant to the appellants' challenge. In Proctor and Gamble Company v. Controller of Patents and Designs (decided on December 8, year not fully specified in the document), the patent was refused for lack of an inventive step after a four-year delay, prompting the court to remand the matter for reconsideration.

The court observed that the legislative intent was to avoid delays, but no specific time limit was prescribed. The Calcutta High Court distinguished this case, as it addressed procedural delays in refusal, not the constitutional validity of the patent term provision. In Nitto Denko Corporation v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 3742/2013, report dated February 27, 2014), the Delhi High Court constituted a committee to examine expedited patent examination and compensatory mechanisms, such as waiving maintenance fees for delayed periods. The committee, in its 2015 report, rejected patent term extensions akin to the U.S. Patent Term Adjustment, citing India's competitive market and rapid technological obsolescence. The Calcutta High Court noted that no court directive followed the committee's report, and the issue of term extension remained a legislative prerogative, not a judicial one.

Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge
The court meticulously analyzed the appellants' challenge to Section 53's constitutional validity. The court began by clarifying the distinct roles of Sections 11A(7) and 53. Section 11A(7), inserted by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, grants provisional rights to applicants from the publication date until the patent is granted, but explicitly prohibits infringement proceedings during this period.

This provision, the court reasoned, balances the applicant's interim protection with the statutory requirement that full patent rights crystallize only upon grant. Section 53, falling under Chapter VIII of the Act, governs the patent term, stipulating a 20-year duration from the application date, subject to renewal fee payments. The court rejected the appellants' argument that these provisions were contradictory, emphasizing that they operate in separate phases of the patent process: Section 11A(7) addresses pre-grant rights, while Section 53 defines post-grant tenure.

The court further addressed the appellants' claim of double jeopardy under Article 22, which protects against repeated criminal prosecutions. The court found this argument misplaced, as patent renewal fees are civil obligations, not criminal penalties, and the delay in granting the patent did not constitute a constitutional violation.

The appellants' failure to promptly challenge the delay post-grant (in 2012) or demonstrate specific prejudice, such as infringement during the pre-grant period, weakened their case. The court also dismissed the res judicata objection, noting that the Single Bench had granted liberty to challenge Section 53's vires, thereby preserving the appellants' right to raise this issue.

Drawing on the TRIPS Agreement, the court noted that the 20-year patent term, extended from 14 years by the 2005 amendment, aligns with international standards and enhances patentee rights. The Single Bench's observation that Section 11A(7) provides interim protection without prematurely granting full rights was upheld as legally sound.

The court also considered the appellants' reference to the U.S. Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) model, which compensates for delays in patent processing. Citing the Nitto Denko committee's findings, the court noted that India's patent regime prioritizes competitive markets and rapid technological turnover, rendering PTA unsuitable. The court underscored that legislative policy, such as amending Section 53, lies beyond judicial purview under Article 226, as courts interpret laws, not enact them.

Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on April 22, 2025, affirming the Single Bench's judgment that Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the appellants' challenge, holding that Sections 11A(7) and 53 operate in distinct domains and do not conflict. No costs were awarded, and the court directed an urgent certified copy of the judgment to be supplied to the appellants.

Law Settled in This Case
This case reinforces the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, clarifying that the 20-year patent term from the application date is consistent with the TRIPS Agreement and does not violate fundamental rights. It establishes that Section 11A(7) and Section 53 serve different purposes—interim protection versus post-grant tenure—and are not contradictory. The judgment underscores the judiciary's limited role in legislative policy, affirming that courts cannot direct amendments to statutory provisions. Additionally, it highlights that delays in patent grants, while undesirable, do not automatically render statutory provisions unconstitutional absent specific prejudice or infringement. The case also distinguishes India's patent regime from models like the U.S. PTA, emphasizing India's unique economic and technological context.

Case Title: Gunjan Sinha (a) Kanishk Sinha Vs. Union of India
Date of Order: April 22, 2025
Case No.: MAT 903 of 2024
Name of Court: High Court at Calcutta
Name of Hon'ble Judges: Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539