Summary
The post examines the significance of the statement of working of patents within the Indian patent system, questioning its actual impact on public interest. It outlines the statutory mandate for patent working under the Patents Act, 1970, and discusses the recent public interest litigation demanding stricter compliance. The analysis highlights that filing such statements is largely procedural, offering limited benefit to the public, and may even burden patent holders without advancing innovation access. The author argues that genuine improvements in the patent system should address substantive issues like examination quality and enforcement, rather than focusing on administrative filings. The post calls for a balanced approach that upholds both patent and public interests within India’s legal framework.
Working of Patents: The Statutory Framework
Working of patents is an integral element of the Indian patent system. In line with the primary objective of patent law — promoting the progress of science and technology for public good and economic progress — the Indian Patents Act specifically mandates working of patents in India. Failing such working, a compulsory licence may be granted with respect to a patent, or, in the worst case scenario, the patent may be revoked. (See Chapter XVI — Working of Patents, Compulsory Licences and Revocation, Patents Act, 1970.)
It was reported that a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed seeking strict compliance with the requirement to submit working of patent statements to the patent office. In response, the Delhi High Court issued a notice to the Government to submit a reply. The PIL was said to be grounded in findings by a research team indicating that many patentees do not file statements of working, and that the Delhi High Court should direct the patent office to implement the requirement more stringently.
The Fundamental Question: Public Interest or Paperwork?
India has the right to develop its own patent model that balances patent and public interests for specific outcomes. As long as Indian Patent Law complies with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and other international instruments, the nature of the domestic system is a matter of domestic policy. There is, however, always a threshold beyond which the patent system becomes counter-productive — adding neither value to patent holders nor benefit to the public. Anti-patent perspectives tend to cross that line in favour of public interest, while pro-patent positions tend to favour patent holders at the expense of public interest objectives.
This tension has previously been seen with Section 3(d) and compulsory licensing. The statement of working requirement raises similar questions.
Why the Statement of Working Requirement May Not Further Public Interest
The following considerations suggest that strict enforcement of the statement of working requirement serves limited public interest purposes:
- A statement of working is a procedural requirement. Non-filing does not mean that a patent is not being worked; and if a patent is genuinely not worked in India, compulsory licensing or revocation remains available irrespective of whether a statement was filed.
- If the statement of working requirement is enforced, it will increase administrative burden without necessarily bringing any invention to the market. At best, it provides information for research purposes.
- Less than 0.5 per cent of patents actually reach the market. Those that do may take more than ten years after grant to be commercialised. Filing a statement of working during this development period may be impractical or meaningless.
- Most companies manage portfolios of hundreds of patents, with the expectation that a small fraction will ultimately yield returns. It is impractical to submit annual statements for each patent in such a portfolio, and the administrative burden may outweigh any benefit the system is intended to provide.
- In the telecommunications and information technology fields, a single product may embody several hundred patent families. Quantification of the commercial working attributable to any individual patent in such a portfolio is, as a practical matter, not achievable with any precision.
Alternative Approaches
There are several alternative mechanisms by which the working requirement under the Patents Act could be effectively administered. For instance, working statements could be required only in the course of legal proceedings rather than as a routine administrative obligation; or they could be submitted on demand by the Controller rather than at prescribed intervals. These approaches would concentrate the requirement where it has real legal consequence, without imposing a general compliance burden that produces limited practical benefit.
Conclusion
Other procedural issues with the patent system — including quality of examination, speed and transparency of the patent office, and enforcement mechanisms — are of greater urgency and more direct public interest significance than the statement of working filing requirement. Strict enforcement of the statement of working requirement, as it stands, is unlikely to further the objectives of the patent system in any meaningful way, and may prove counter-productive by increasing administrative costs without a corresponding public benefit.
Disclaimer
This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.