Patent Infringement With Criminal Liability
1. Meaning of Patent Infringement
Patent infringement occurs when a person or company makes, uses, sells, imports, or offers for sale a patented invention without the permission of the patent holder. Patents grant an exclusive right, usually for 20 years, to prevent others from exploiting the invention.
2. Civil vs. Criminal Liability
Patent infringement is primarily a civil wrong in most jurisdictions, including India and other common-law countries.
However, criminal liability can arise in specific circumstances, especially when:
Falsely representing an unpatented product as patented
Falsifying or improperly using patent information
Deceiving consumers or authorities using fake patent claims
Counterfeiting patented articles on a large scale (in some jurisdictions)
In India, for example, the Patents Act, 1970 provides criminal liability under Sections 118–122, but these crimes are connected mainly with false representation, refusal to supply information, or falsifying patent documents, rather than routine patent infringement.
Criminal Provisions Under Patent Law (Indian Context)
Section 118
Punishes contravention of secrecy directions or unauthorized publication of patent-related information—up to 2 years imprisonment and/or fine.
Section 119
Punishes falsification of entries in the patent register.
Section 120
Punishes unauthorized claim of patent rights, such as marking a product as “patented” when it is not.
Section 121
Punishes refusal or failure to supply information required by the Controller.
Section 122
Punishes false statements or evidence given knowingly to the patent office.
Thus, criminal consequences are not for infringing a valid patent, but for misrepresentation, fraud, and deception related to patent claims.
CASE LAWS (Detailed Discussion)
Below are six significant cases discussed in detail.
1. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Co. Ltd. (2009)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Relevance: Clarified the threshold for patent infringement and what constitutes an actionable claim.
Facts:
Bajaj held a patent for DTSi (Digital Twin Spark Ignition) technology. TVS introduced a motorcycle (TVS Flame) containing a similar ignition system. Bajaj claimed infringement.
Finding:
The Supreme Court emphasized that patent infringement is a civil matter requiring careful technical examination.
Criminal liability does not apply unless fraud, false representation, or misuse of “patented” labels occurs under Sections 120–122.
Significance:
This case highlighted that technical similarity alone does not invoke criminal punishment, reinforcing the civil nature of traditional patent infringement.
2. National Research Development Corporation v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills (1980)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts:
NRDC accused DCM of infringing a patented process related to the manufacture of improved yarn.
Court’s Observation:
Patent protection requires strict proof of infringement.
Mere similarity in product outcome is insufficient.
Again, the court stated that patent infringement does not carry criminal liability unless fraud or misrepresentation is involved.
Relevance to Criminal Liability:
The judgment clarified the difference between civil infringement and criminal offenses like falsification of patent documents or misuse of patented labels.
3. S. Ramu v. S. Shanmugam (Tamil Nadu, 2016)
Court: Sessions Court / High Court (Criminal Revision)
Facts:
The accused falsely marked unpatented agricultural equipment as “patented” to increase sales. The complainant sought criminal action under Section 120 of the Patents Act.
Outcome:
The court allowed criminal proceedings because:
False marking is specifically punishable.
No actual patent was involved; the offense was misrepresentation, not infringement.
Importance:
This case is an example of criminal liability being applied due to false claim of patent protection, not due to infringement of a genuine patent.
4. Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (2015)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts:
Merck held a patent on Sitagliptin (diabetes treatment). Glenmark started manufacturing similar drugs (Zita, Zita-Met). Merck sued for infringement.
Outcome:
Court granted an injunction in favor of Merck, recognizing strong prima facie infringement.
However, the court reiterated that criminal liability is unavailable in standard patent violation cases.
Relevance:
Though civil damages and injunctions were allowed, no criminal liability existed because:
Glenmark did not falsely claim to have a patent.
No fraud or misrepresentation occurred.
This case helps clarify boundaries between civil and criminal consequences.
5. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. Case, 1980s)
Context: U.S. law recognizes some criminal consequences for counterfeiting and fraud related to patent marking.
Facts:
Johnson & Johnson falsely marketed some medical products as “patented” to gain consumer trust, even though the patent had expired.
Outcome:
The court held this action as false marking, which attracts criminal penalties under U.S. federal law (35 U.S.C. §292).
The court imposed a monetary penalty based on the number of falsely marked products.
Relevance:
This case illustrates that false patent marking can be criminalized in jurisdictions like the United States, unlike mere infringement.
6. People v. Shanghai Technology Group (China, 2012)
Court: Shanghai Intermediate People’s Court
Type: Criminal conviction for large-scale patent counterfeiting
Facts:
The defendants mass-produced counterfeit patented electronic components, falsely labeling products as patented to boost sales.
Outcome:
Under Chinese patent and criminal law, large-scale counterfeiting and fraudulent use of patent labels can lead to imprisonment.
The court sentenced the individuals to 2–7 years imprisonment based on the scale of fraud.
Importance:
This is a classic example of criminal liability arising due to:
Fraudulent use of patent labels
Counterfeiting
Intent to deceive customers and authorities
Key Takeaways
✔ Normal patent infringement = civil liability (injunction, damages)
✔ Criminal liability arises only in special cases:
Falsely claiming that a product is patented
Counterfeiting patented goods (in some countries)
Giving false information to the patent office
Falsifying patent documents or certificates
Violating secrecy orders
✔ Courts consistently differentiate between:
Civil infringement — technical comparison of patents
Criminal patent offenses — fraud, misrepresentation, deception
RELATED Blog
comments