Intellectual Property Rights - Law and Practice · Indian Patent Law and its Developments

Rights, Infringement and Compulsory Licensing under the Patents Act

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

A patentee can assign, license or otherwise deal with the patent (section 70). If the public interest is not served, the Controller can grant a compulsory licence under section 84 after three years from grant, or under section 92 in an emergency. A compulsory licence can later lead to revocation under section 85.

Understand Rights, Infringement and Compulsory Licensing

A patent gives its owner a monopoly. The owner can work the invention, stop others from using it, and sell or license the patent. Under section 70, the registered grantee or proprietor can assign, grant licences under, or otherwise deal with the patent. This is subject to the rules on co-ownership and to any rights of others that are entered in the register.

The monopoly is not unlimited. The law balances the patentee's reward against the public's need for the invention. If the patentee sits on the patent, prices it out of reach, or does not work it in India, the Controller can force a licence. This is a compulsory licence. The patentee still gets paid, on terms the Controller fixes.

There are three routes to remember. Section 84 is the ordinary route and is open to any person interested. Section 91 is for a person who needs a licence on one patent to work another patent efficiently. Section 92 is the emergency route, which starts with a Central Government notification.

Compulsory licensing can end in revocation. Under section 85, if a compulsory licence has been granted, the Central Government or any person interested can apply to revoke the patent after two years from the first compulsory licence order. Infringement remedies, such as injunction and damages, are covered in the separate topic on Patent Infringement and Remedies. Here, focus on how rights are dealt with and when they can be curtailed.

Key rules to remember

Patentee's power to deal (s. 70): Registered grantee or proprietor can assign, license or otherwise deal with the patent and give effectual receipts; Subject to co-ownership provisions and to rights of others of which notice is entered in the register. Equities can be enforced as for movable property.
Compulsory licence timing (s. 84(1)): Application possible after three years from the date of grant of the patent; Any person interested can apply. Even an existing licensee can apply (s. 84(2)).
Grounds under s. 84(1): (a) public requirements not satisfied; (b) not available at a reasonably affordable price; (c) not worked in India; Any one ground is enough. Section 84(7) lists when public requirements are deemed unmet.
Factors the Controller weighs (s. 84(6)): Nature of invention and time elapsed and measures taken; applicant's ability to work it; applicant's capacity to bear capital risk; efforts to get a voluntary licence; Efforts to obtain a voluntary licence must have failed within a reasonable period, ordinarily not exceeding six months. This is not needed in national emergency, extreme urgency, public non-commercial use or proven anti-competitive practice.
Related patents licence (s. 91): Applicant who works another patent can seek a licence if prevented or hindered from working it efficiently or to best advantage; The Controller must be satisfied that (i) the applicant can grant a licence on reasonable terms on the other invention, and (ii) that invention has substantially contributed to commercial or industrial activity in India. The licence is non-assignable except with the respective patents.
Emergency licence (s. 92): Central Government notification (national emergency, extreme urgency, public non-commercial use), then application to the Controller; The Controller aims for the lowest prices consistent with a reasonable advantage to the patentee. For these cases, including public health crises such as HIV, TB and malaria, the s. 87 procedure is not applied, but the patentee is informed as soon as practicable.
Revocation for non-working (s. 85): Application after two years from the first compulsory licence order; ordinarily decided within one year; Applicant: Central Government or any person interested. Grounds: not worked in India, public requirements unmet, or not reasonably affordable.
Revision of terms (s. 88(4)): Licensee may seek revision after working on a commercial scale for at least twelve months; Ground: terms proved more onerous than expected and the licensee can work only at a loss. No second application is entertained.

How to solve Rights, Infringement and Compulsory Licensing questions

Use this method for any problem on a patentee's rights or a compulsory licence. It follows the provision, facts, conclusion format.

1Identify what is asked: dealing with the patent, a compulsory licence, a related-patent licence, an emergency licence, or revocation.
2Name the section: s. 70 for dealing, s. 84 for ordinary compulsory licence, s. 91 for related patents, s. 92 for emergency, s. 85 for revocation.
3Check the timing condition: three years from grant for s. 84, two years from the first licence order for s. 85, a Government notification for s. 92.
4Match the facts to a ground: unmet public requirements, unaffordable price or non-working in India. Use s. 84(7) to test unmet requirements.
5Check the Controller's factors under s. 84(6), especially whether the applicant tried for a voluntary licence for about six months, unless the exception applies.
6State the Controller's power: grant on terms he thinks fit, plus incidental powers under s. 88.
7Conclude clearly, and add a practical point such as terms, royalty, non-assignability or revision.

Quickest way: Section-and-trigger grid

When to use it: Use it when time is short and the question gives a short fact pattern asking which remedy or licence applies.

Underline the trigger word: three years, price, not worked, emergency, another patent, revoke.
Map it: price or non-working or unmet need goes to s. 84; emergency goes to s. 92; blocked by another patent goes to s. 91; revoke goes to s. 85.
Write the condition, then the facts, then the order the Controller can make.
Add one line on terms, such as the s. 88 powers or the s. 91 non-assignability proviso.

Common mistakes in Rights, Infringement and Compulsory Licensing

Saying a compulsory licence can be sought at any time after the patent is filed.
Students mix up filing, sealing and grant.
Fix: For s. 84 the wait is three years from the date of grant of the patent. Quote the text.
Applying the six-month voluntary licence effort rule to every case.
Students remember the rule but forget the proviso.
Fix: It does not apply in national emergency, extreme urgency, public non-commercial use or anti-competitive practice by the patentee.
Confusing s. 91 with s. 84.
Both give licences through the Controller.
Fix: Section 91 applies where the applicant already has rights in another patent and needs this one to work it efficiently. Section 84 is about the public interest.
Saying the Controller has no role in emergency licences under s. 92.
The Government issues the notification, so students stop there.
Fix: After the notification, the Controller grants the licence on application and fixes the terms.
Treating revocation under s. 85 as available once a compulsory licence is applied for.
Students skip the precondition.
Fix: A compulsory licence must have been granted, and two years must have passed since the first such order.

Worked examples

Example 1

Medicor Pharma Ltd holds an Indian patent for a cancer drug, granted in January 2021. It sells imported stock only at ₹2,40,000 per course and does not manufacture in India. In March 2025, Bharat Generics Pvt Ltd, which has the capacity to manufacture, asks for a voluntary licence. Medicor refuses. After seven months Bharat applies for a compulsory licence. Advise.

Show the solution

Provision: s. 84(1) allows any person interested to apply after three years from the date of grant. Grounds are unmet public requirements, unaffordable price, or non-working in India.
Timing: the patent was granted in January 2021, so three years had passed by January 2024. Bharat asked for a licence in March 2025 and applied seven months later. March 2025 plus seven months is October 2025. An application in October 2025 is in time.
Grounds: the drug is priced at ₹2,40,000 and is only imported, not made in India. This supports the grounds of unaffordable price (s. 84(1)(b)) and non-working in India (s. 84(1)(c)). Under s. 84(7), public requirements are deemed unmet if the invention is not worked in India on a commercial scale to an adequate extent (s. 84(7)(d)). They are also deemed unmet if, because the patentee refused a licence on reasonable terms, demand for the patented article is not met to an adequate extent or on reasonable terms (s. 84(7)(a)(ii)). Medicor's refusal and import-only supply fit both clauses.
Controller's factors under s. 84(6): Bharat has the capacity to manufacture, but it must still show its ability to work the invention for the public advantage and its capacity to bear the capital risk. On voluntary licence efforts, s. 84(6)(iv) requires that Bharat's efforts on reasonable terms failed within a reasonable period. The Explanation says this period does not ordinarily exceed six months. Bharat waited seven months after Medicor refused, so this factor is met.
Conclusion: Bharat has a strong case. The Controller may grant a licence on terms he thinks fit, with a royalty to Medicor.

Answer: Bharat's application is maintainable under s. 84. The Controller may grant a compulsory licence on suitable terms.

Example 2

Aarav Tech Ltd owns a patent on a device. To work the device efficiently, it needs to use a sensor process patented by Zenith Ltd. Zenith refuses to give Aarav a licence. Can Aarav get relief, and on what conditions?

Show the solution

Provision: s. 91(1) lets a person who has the right to work any other patented invention, as patentee or licensee, apply to the Controller for a licence of the first-mentioned patent. The ground is that he is prevented or hindered without that licence from working the other invention efficiently or to the best advantage possible.
Identify the two patents: Aarav's device patent is the other patented invention, which Aarav has the right to work as patentee. Zenith's sensor-process patent is the first-mentioned patent, for which Aarav seeks a licence. Aarav's case is that without the sensor licence it is hindered from working its own device efficiently. Section 91 does not require a prior refusal by Zenith, so the refusal is not a condition, though it explains why Aarav applies.
Condition (i): under s. 91(2)(i), Aarav must be able and willing to grant, or procure the grant to Zenith and its licensees (if they so desire) of, a licence in respect of the device invention (the other invention) on reasonable terms.
Condition (ii): under s. 91(2)(ii), Aarav's device invention (the other invention) must have made a substantial contribution to the establishment or development of commercial or industrial activities in the territory of India.
Order: if the Controller is satisfied, he may grant Aarav a licence under Zenith's sensor patent on terms he thinks fit. He may also make a similar order under Aarav's device patent if Zenith (the proprietor of the first-mentioned patent) or its licensee requests it.
Limit: the licence is non-assignable except with the assignment of the respective patents. Sections 87, 88, 89 and 90 apply as they do to licences under s. 84.

Answer: Aarav can apply under s. 91 for a licence of Zenith's sensor patent (the first-mentioned patent) because it is hindered from working its own device patent (the other invention) without it. Relief depends on both conditions in s. 91(2) being satisfied by reference to the device invention. The Controller may then grant a non-assignable licence on terms he thinks fit.

Exam tips

Write the section number with each point. Answers are marked on provision, analysis and conclusion.
Learn the three grounds of s. 84(1) word for word and the clauses (a) to (e) of s. 84(7).
In problem questions, check the dates first. The three-year and two-year periods decide many answers.
Keep a one-line contrast ready for s. 84, s. 91 and s. 92. Examiners like comparison questions.
For the Natco and Bayer compulsory licence case, use it only if you know the facts well. Otherwise argue from the grounds in the section.

Practice questions from Indian Patent Law and its Developments

Rights, Infringement and Compulsory Licensing in other exams

The same ground in other exams, if you are preparing for more than one or want another angle on it.

CS ExecutiveCompulsory Licensing, Revocation and Patent Infringement

Rights, Infringement and Compulsory Licensing: frequently asked questions

When can I apply for a compulsory licence in India?

Under s. 84 you can apply after three years from the date of grant of the patent. You must be a person interested, and you must base the application on one or more of the three grounds. In an emergency under s. 92, the application follows a Central Government notification.

Who can apply for a compulsory licence under section 84?

Any person interested can apply. Section 84(2) says even an existing licensee can apply, and no admission in the licence stops them from alleging the grounds.

What is the difference between section 84 and section 92?

Section 84 is the ordinary route after three years from grant, with a full procedure. Section 92 is triggered by a Central Government notification in a national emergency, extreme urgency or public non-commercial use. In those cases, the s. 87 procedure need not be applied.

Can a patent be revoked after a compulsory licence?

Yes. Under s. 85, after two years from the first compulsory licence order, the Central Government or any person interested can apply to the Controller. The grounds are non-working in India, unmet public requirements or lack of affordability. The Controller ordinarily decides within one year.