Patent Infringement And Criminal Liability
⚖️ 1. What is Patent Infringement?
Patent infringement occurs when a person or company makes, uses, sells, or imports a patented product or process without the permission of the patent holder during the term of the patent.
There are two types:
Direct infringement – doing something that is reserved to the patentee (e.g., making/selling the patented product).
Indirect infringement – contributing to or inducing another party to infringe.
⚠️ 2. Is Patent Infringement a Criminal Offense in India?
No, patent infringement in India is purely a civil offense — it does not attract criminal liability under the Patents Act, 1970.
However:
Certain related offenses, such as falsifying patent data, falsely claiming a patent, or providing false representation, are criminal offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Patents Act (Sections 120–124).
So while infringement itself is civil, criminal liability may arise in related misconduct, e.g.:
Falsely marking a product as patented (Section 120),
False representation of patent office documents (Section 122),
Refusal to supply information to the Controller (Section 123),
Making false entries in the patent register (IPC Section 192–196: forgery, fraud).
📜 3. Legal Framework in India
| Statute | Relevant Sections |
|---|---|
| Patents Act, 1970 | Section 104–114 (Infringement), Sections 120–124 (Criminal Provisions) |
| IPC, 1860 | Forgery, cheating, fraud |
| Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Civil remedies – injunction, damages |
| Customs Act, 1962 | Border enforcement on patent-infringing imports |
🧑⚖️ 4. Detailed Case Law – Patent Infringement + Criminal Aspects
Case 1: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.
Court: Delhi High Court (2008–2015)
Nature: Civil Patent Infringement
Criminal Aspect? No direct criminal liability — but discussed public interest.
Facts:
Roche sued Cipla for patent infringement of the cancer drug Erlotinib Hydrochloride. Cipla claimed invalidity and invoked public interest.
Court Ruling:
Initially, no injunction granted due to public interest.
Later, court ruled Cipla did infringe but awarded no damages due to lack of willful misconduct and price difference.
Significance:
Established that infringement can occur even without intent, but damages and remedies depend on conduct.
No criminal liability for infringement — but potential civil penalties and injunctions.
Case 2: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Delhi High Court (2015)
Nature: Patent Infringement – Diabetes Drug (Sitagliptin)
Criminal Aspect? No
Facts:
Merck sued Glenmark for infringing its patent on Januvia (sitagliptin), a diabetes drug.
Outcome:
Delhi HC held Glenmark’s product was infringing.
Issued a permanent injunction and granted damages.
Significance:
No criminal offense committed, but clear ruling that patent infringement results in strict civil liability. Reinforces that India does not recognize criminal prosecution for infringement.
Case 3: Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company Ltd.
Court: Madras High Court (2009), Supreme Court (2010)
Nature: Patent Infringement – DTSi engine technology
Criminal Aspect? No direct criminal offense, but parties accused each other of misrepresentation (possible IPC offenses if proven).
Facts:
Bajaj sued TVS for infringing its twin-spark plug patent used in motorcycles.
Outcome:
Interim injunction granted initially.
Later vacated; case settled out of court.
Significance:
Raised questions of bad faith patenting and commercial fraud — potentially triggering criminal liability if proven, but ultimately treated as civil.
Case 4: Chemtura Corporation v. Union of India & Others (2009)
Court: Delhi High Court
Nature: Patent Enforcement Dispute
Criminal Aspect? No criminal liability – but involved potential violation of government licensing rules.
Facts:
Chemtura alleged that Indian companies infringed its patented mosquito repellent technology.
Outcome:
Court held that the patent was not infringed and that the product made by the Indian company was different.
Significance:
While no criminal penalty imposed, had the patent office been misled, Sections 120–122 of Patents Act might have applied (e.g., false representation or suppression).
Case 5: National Research Development Corporation of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. (1980)
Court: Delhi High Court
Nature: Patent Infringement
Criminal Aspect? Related to willful misappropriation of patented tech from CSIR
Facts:
NRDC, acting on behalf of CSIR, sued DCM for unauthorized use of its patented technology for producing a chemical.
Outcome:
Injunction granted; damages awarded.
Significance:
Although criminal liability wasn’t pursued, willful misuse of government-patented technology could potentially attract criminal charges in public sector contexts under IPC (criminal breach of trust).
Case 6: Ericsson v. Micromax & Intex (2013–2016)
Court: Delhi High Court & Competition Commission of India (CCI)
Nature: Patent Infringement – Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)
Criminal Aspect? Indirect – accusations of fraudulent concealment, misuse of dominant position.
Facts:
Ericsson sued Micromax and Intex for using mobile technology covered under SEPs without licenses.
Outcome:
Court granted interim royalty payments.
CCI also examined abuse of dominant position under the Competition Act.
No criminal charges, but raised issues of bad faith in negotiations.
Significance:
When patent holders abuse dominance or conceal material facts, criminal liability can arise (e.g., fraud, misrepresentation) under IPC and Competition Act.
🧾 Related Criminal Offenses under Indian Law
| Offense | Legal Provision | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| False marking of goods as patented | Section 120 – Patents Act | Fine up to ₹1 lakh |
| Refusal to supply required info to Patent Controller | Section 123 | Fine up to ₹10 lakh |
| False statement in patent application | IPC Sections 192–196 | Imprisonment & fine |
| Criminal breach of trust (e.g., by licensee) | IPC Section 406 | 3 years + fine |
| Cheating / Fraud | IPC Sections 420, 417 | 7 years / 1 year |
🔍 Key Legal Takeaways
Patent infringement is NOT a criminal offense in India.
It is enforced through civil remedies only: injunctions, damages, accounts of profit.
Courts may grant Anton Piller orders (search and seize) or Mareva injunctions (asset freeze).
Criminal liability may arise for related acts, such as:
Falsely claiming patent protection,
Making false statements to the patent office,
Forging patent documents,
Refusing to cooperate with authorities.
Willful misconduct or fraud in patent dealings (e.g., misrepresenting ownership, licensing fraud) can trigger IPC provisions.
No imprisonment or criminal fine is prescribed under Indian law for mere infringement of a valid patent.
Global contrast: In some jurisdictions (e.g., China, UAE), willful large-scale patent infringement can lead to criminal charges, especially where national interest or counterfeiting is involved.
✅ Conclusion
In India, civil law governs patent enforcement, but criminal law is invoked for misconduct surrounding patent procedures, not for infringement itself. As IP becomes central to innovation and national strategy, more aggressive enforcement (including criminal proceedings for fraud) is likely in the future.
RELATED Blog
0 comments