Import And Export Patent Issues
IMPORT AND EXPORT PATENT ISSUES – ADVANCED ANALYSIS
Patents not only protect inventions domestically, but also affect cross-border trade. Import and export issues arise mainly in pharmaceuticals, biotech, and high-tech industries.
Key Legal Questions:
Can a patented product be imported without the patentee’s permission?
Are there restrictions on exporting patented products?
How do TRIPS and Compulsory Licensing interact with import/export?
What is the effect of parallel importation on patent rights?
Relevant laws:
Patents Act, 1970 – Sections 48, 107, 104, 100 (import/export & infringement)
TRIPS Agreement – Articles 28, 31
1. Unauthorized Import of Patented Products (Section 48 & 107)
Case 1: Bayer Corporation v. Natco Pharma (2012)
Facts:
Natco imported Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar) from abroad without Bayer’s license.
Legal Issue:
Whether importing a patented drug without authorization is infringement in India.
Held:
The Delhi High Court held that importing a patented product without consent amounts to infringement, even if it is for personal use or commercial sale.
However, public interest considerations and Section 84 (compulsory license) may justify certain imports.
Principle:
Patentees have exclusive rights to make, use, sell, and import their patented products in India.
Advanced Note:
This case illustrates the interface of patent rights and access to medicines.
2. Export of Patented Products
Case 2: Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013)
Facts:
Novartis claimed export rights for Imatinib to countries where it held patents.
Legal Issue:
Does Indian patent law restrict exports if Section 3(d) bars patent grant?
Held:
Indian patent law only grants rights within India.
If a product is not patented in India (or patent is rejected), anyone can manufacture or export it legally.
Principle:
Patent rights are territorial. Absence of an Indian patent allows domestic manufacture for export.
Advanced Insight:
This principle supports generic drug exports to developing countries under TRIPS flexibility.
3. Parallel Importation
Definition:
Importing a patented product legally sold abroad without patentee’s authorization.
Case 3: Bayer Corporation v. Cipla Ltd. (2013)
Facts:
Cipla imported Bayer’s patented cancer drug from an overseas market where Bayer held rights.
Legal Issue:
Whether parallel importation infringes Indian patents.
Held:
Court held that unauthorized importation infringes Indian patent, even if product sold abroad legally.
Patentee’s right to import is exclusive under Section 48.
Principle:
Parallel imports are restricted unless explicitly allowed by law or license.
Advanced Note:
Parallel import is often discussed in TRIPS and public health debates, e.g., India vs. EU.
4. Compulsory Licensing and Import/Export
Case 4: Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corp. (2012)
Facts:
Natco sought a compulsory license to manufacture Nexavar for domestic sale and export to LDCs.
Held:
Patent granted to Bayer; Natco obtained compulsory license due to high cost and insufficient working in India.
Court allowed limited manufacturing and export to meet public health needs.
Principle:
Compulsory licenses can include export rights under Sections 84–100, ensuring public health compliance.
Advanced Insight:
This case operationalizes the TRIPS Article 31bis flexibility for LDCs.
5. Patent Exhaustion and Import/Export
Definition:
Patent rights are “exhausted” after first sale, limiting the patentee’s control over resale or import.
Case 5: Roche Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. (2010)
Facts:
Cipla imported a patented drug sold by Roche in another jurisdiction.
Issue:
Does patent exhaustion limit patentee’s import rights?
Held:
Indian courts rejected international exhaustion principle.
Patentee retains exclusive import rights under Section 48.
Principle:
India follows territorial patent rights, not global exhaustion.
6. Export Restrictions due to Compulsory Licensing
Case 6: Bayer v. Union of India (2014)
Facts:
Bayer argued that compulsory license allowed Natco to produce only for domestic sale; exporting would violate patent rights.
Held:
Court clarified that export of products under compulsory license requires specific authorization.
Section 100 allows export only for supplying countries lacking patent protection.
Principle:
Compulsory licensing may restrict exports to public interest or LDCs.
7. Emerging Issues: Digital Products and Software
Case 7: Ferid Allani v. Union of India (2019)
Facts:
Software patent involving algorithms and cloud services. Issue: cross-border access of patented software.
Held:
Unauthorized distribution of patented software outside India constitutes infringement if used in India.
Territorial principle remains key.
Principle:
Patent protection extends to import/export of software/services if used in Indian territory.
8. Summary Table: Import & Export Patent Issues
| Issue | Legal Provision | Case Example | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized Import | Section 48, 107 | Bayer v. Natco | Infringement occurs even for imported patented products |
| Export without patent | Territorial | Novartis v. Union of India | No Indian patent → lawful export |
| Parallel Import | Section 48 | Bayer v. Cipla | Unauthorized import violates patent |
| Compulsory License Export | Sections 84–100 | Natco v. Bayer | Export allowed under public health guidelines |
| Patent Exhaustion | Section 48 | Roche v. Cipla | India rejects international exhaustion; patentee retains import right |
| Software/ Digital Goods | Territorial | Ferid Allani | Import/export of patented digital products constitutes infringement if used in India |
✅ Advanced Insights:
Indian patent law is territorial; rights apply only in India, but imports of patented goods into India require authorization.
Compulsory licensing can allow domestic production and selective export, especially to LDCs.
Parallel imports are generally prohibited, unless law or license permits.
Pharmaceuticals and biotech dominate import/export disputes due to cost and public health impact.
RELATED Blog
comments