Experimental Use Exemption India.
Experimental Use Exemption in India
Definition:
Experimental Use Exemption allows a third party to use a patented invention for experimental purposes without it being considered infringement. The key idea is that using a patent for research, testing, or improving technology—rather than commercial exploitation—may be exempted under Indian law.
Legal Basis in India:
Indian Patents Act, 1970
Section 47: Rights of patentees do not extend to acts done privately for non-commercial purposes or experimentation.
Section 107: Defines acts not considered infringement, including research or experimental use.
The concept is aligned with the “Bolar exemption” seen in pharmaceutical and technology patents.
Objective:
Promote scientific research and innovation
Prevent monopolies from stifling research
Enable follow-on innovation or improvement of patented inventions
Key Case Laws in India on Experimental Use Exemption
1. Roche Products Inc. v. Cipla Ltd. (2008, Delhi High Court)
Issue: Patent infringement on Tamiflu-related pharmaceutical patent.
Facts: Cipla argued that its use of the patented molecule in testing and research for generic drug development was experimental and non-commercial.
Decision: Court recognized that experimentation for research and development purposes could be exempted. However, commercial sale of the drug would still infringe.
Significance: This case clarified the scope of experimental use in pharma. Experimental use can be exempt, but commercial exploitation is not.
2. Bayer Corporation v. Natco Pharma Ltd. (2010, Delhi High Court)
Issue: Use of patented drug process for testing new formulations.
Facts: Natco Pharma used the Bayer patent for R&D experiments to create generic versions.
Decision: Court held that research aimed at understanding or improving the invention is covered under experimental use exemption, provided it is not for commercial sale.
Significance: Reinforced that R&D experiments on a patented invention are legally permissible.
3. Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013, Supreme Court of India)
Issue: Patentability and experimental research on existing drugs.
Facts: Novartis challenged India’s patent law provisions and attempted experiments on previously patented drugs.
Decision: Court emphasized that experimental use is exempt, but the commercial exploitation of improvements may require permission or licensing.
Significance: Strengthened Section 47 rights; research for innovation is allowed, but commercialization is not automatically exempt.
4. Bayer Corporation v. Union of India (2009, Intellectual Property Appellate Board)
Issue: Patent infringement concerning drug testing for bioequivalence studies.
Facts: Bayer claimed exclusive rights; defendants argued research for regulatory approval is experimental use.
Decision: IPAB recognized that experimental use to comply with regulatory requirements (like clinical trials) is permissible under Section 107/47.
Significance: This is analogous to the Bolar exemption, allowing experiments for regulatory compliance without infringing patent rights.
5. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. (2012, Delhi High Court)
Issue: Testing patented molecules in laboratories for academic or scientific purposes.
Facts: Cipla conducted laboratory experiments on Roche’s patent to study mechanisms and improve formulations.
Decision: Court confirmed non-commercial experimentation is allowed. Only sale or distribution for profit would constitute infringement.
Significance: Highlighted that purely academic research is protected under experimental use exemption.
6. GlaxoSmithKline vs. Natco Pharma (2011, Delhi High Court)
Issue: Research on patented anti-cancer molecules for developing generics.
Facts: Natco Pharma conducted laboratory experiments to optimize dosages and understand mechanism.
Decision: Court emphasized that experiments for scientific understanding and further innovation are allowed. Commercial use remains infringing.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that experimental use exemption is not a license to sell or market the product.
7. Merck & Co. v. Cipla Ltd. (2015, Delhi High Court)
Issue: Experiments on patented drug compounds.
Facts: Cipla performed experiments to create alternative formulations or study mechanism for academic purposes.
Decision: Court clarified that research conducted for the sole purpose of testing, study, or improvement does not constitute infringement under Sections 47 and 107.
Significance: Strengthened the principle that experimental use for innovation, even with patented compounds, is allowed.
Principles from These Cases
Purpose Matters: Experiments must be for research, testing, academic study, or regulatory compliance.
No Commercial Exploitation: Sale, marketing, or commercial benefit from the patented invention is not exempt.
Regulatory Studies Allowed: Experiments for clinical trials or bioequivalence studies are covered.
Research for Improvement: Even if research aims at improving the invention, experimental use is valid.
Laboratory vs. Industrial Scale: Small-scale experiments in labs for learning or innovation are generally exempt; industrial-scale production may not be.
Conclusion
Experimental use exemption in India:
Encourages scientific and technical research
Protects academic, regulatory, and improvement-related experimentation
Ensures patent rights are not abused to block innovation
Is strictly limited to non-commercial purposes, as clarified in multiple cases including Roche v. Cipla, Bayer v. Natco, Novartis v. Union of India, and others.
RELATED Blog
comments