Patents occupy a unique position in the intellectual property landscape. They are the most powerful, the most temporary, and the most technically demanding form of IP protection available. Unlike a trademark — which can last forever — a patent expires after 20 years, after which the invention enters the public domain for anyone to use.
The logic is deliberate. The inventor discloses the invention to the public in full technical detail. In exchange, the state grants a 20-year exclusivity window. This is the “patent bargain” — and understanding it is the foundation of patent strategy.
The Three Requirements
Every patent application in India must satisfy three requirements under the Patents Act 1970, and all three must be met simultaneously.
Novelty under Section 2(1)(l): The invention must not have been disclosed anywhere in the world, in any form, prior to the filing date. The prior art universe is global — a paper published in a German journal, a product sold in Japan, an American patent application — any of these can destroy the novelty of your Indian application if they predate your filing.
The practical implication: never publicly disclose your invention — in a conference presentation, a pitch deck, a social media post, a journal submission — before filing. Disclosure before filing destroys novelty, and there is no cure.
Inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja): The invention must not be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant technical field, in light of the prior art. The Indian statute frames this as requiring a technical advance and considers economic significance. This is the most subjectively evaluated of the three requirements.
Industrial applicability under Section 2(1)(ac): The invention must be capable of being made or used in industry. Pure theoretical discoveries, without a practical application, do not satisfy this requirement.
What Cannot Be Patented in India
Section 3 of the Patents Act sets out a list of exclusions that is more extensive than most comparable jurisdictions. Key exclusions include:
Section 3(d): New forms of a known substance — including salts, esters, polymorphs, isomers, and formulations — are not patentable unless the applicant demonstrates significantly enhanced efficacy. This provision was famously invoked by the Supreme Court in the Novartis v. Union of India (2013) decision, rejecting a patent for Glivec. It is the cornerstone of India’s access-to-medicines policy.
Computer programmes per se: Software is not patentable as such under Indian law. A software-implemented invention may be patentable if it has a technical character — if it produces a technical effect beyond the normal physical interactions between software and hardware. The line is contested and fact-specific.
Business methods: Methods of doing business are explicitly excluded. This eliminates broad claims around fintech and platform business model patents.
Mathematical methods and mental acts: Algorithms as such, without technical application, are excluded.
Provisional vs. Complete Specification
Indian patent law allows a two-stage filing strategy that is commercially valuable.
A provisional application secures a priority date on the day of filing. It does not require claims — the formal scope definition of the patent — and may be a relatively brief description of the invention concept. It gives the applicant 12 months to develop the technology further, conduct prior art searches, and draft proper claims before filing the complete specification.
The complete specification is the full legal document — it must describe the invention in sufficient detail for a person skilled in the art to replicate it, state the best method known to the inventor, and include the claims that define the scope of the patent right.
Claims are the most commercially critical element of a patent. They define the legal boundary of the monopoly. Broad claims, if they survive examination, give wider protection. Narrow claims are easier to obtain but easier to design around. Claim drafting is an art — it requires deep technical and legal expertise simultaneously.
The PCT International Route
For inventions with international commercial relevance, the Patent Cooperation Treaty administered by WIPO offers a streamlined pathway to seek patent protection in 157 countries through a single international application.
A PCT application must be filed within 12 months of the Indian priority date. WIPO publishes the application at 18 months from the priority date and issues an International Search Report identifying prior art. The applicant then has until 30 or 31 months from the priority date to enter national phase in each target country.
The PCT does not grant patents — each country’s national office grants patents according to its own law. But the PCT gives applicants significantly more time to evaluate commercial markets before committing to the cost of national phase filings.
The Startup Advantage
India’s patent system offers specific concessions for startups registered under the DPIIT Startup India scheme. Government fees are reduced by approximately 80%. Expedited examination under Rule 24C compresses the timeline significantly. Government-empanelled facilitators provide pro bono filing assistance.
A startup that builds a patent portfolio in its early years creates a defensible competitive position, a licensing asset, and — critically — a due diligence-ready IP portfolio before institutional investment conversations begin.
Enforcement
Section 48 of the Patents Act grants the patentee exclusive rights to prevent third parties from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented invention during the patent term.
Infringement actions are filed in the District Court of the patentee’s jurisdiction, or in a High Court with original civil jurisdiction for high-value commercial disputes. Civil remedies include injunction, damages or account of profits, and delivery up. Courts regularly grant interim injunctions in patent cases where the technical case is clear and the commercial harm from ongoing infringement is demonstrable.
The compulsory licensing provision under Section 84 — available three years after grant if the patent is not being worked adequately in India — is a significant policy check on the patent monopoly. Patentees with active Indian manufacturing or licensing programmes are far less vulnerable to compulsory licensing applications.