Indian patent jurisprudence has been built as much by the courts as by the Patents Act, 1970 itself. The Supreme Court, the High Courts and the erstwhile Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) have given the Act's core concepts — inventive step, pharmaceutical efficacy, infringement analysis, biotech exclusions and the patent–competition interface — their working meaning. This guide examines the six decisions our patent team treats as foundational, explaining for each the background, the statutory provisions engaged, the court's reasoning, how superior courts have since treated the ruling, and what it means in practice for innovators, pharmaceutical companies, technology businesses and patent owners.
In this guide
1. Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries, (1979) 2 SCC 511
Background
The dispute concerned a claimed improvement in the process of manufacturing brass and German-silver utensils — essentially the mounting of the utensil on a lever-and-bracket arrangement for scraping and polishing. The patentee sued for infringement; the defendant countered that the claimed invention was nothing more than an ordinary workshop adaptation of methods long known to the trade.
Statutory provisions
The case was decided under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, but its reasoning is now read directly into the Patents Act, 1970 — in particular the definition of "inventive step" in Section 2(1)(ja) (inserted by the 2002 amendment and refined in 2005) and the revocation ground of obviousness under Section 64(1)(f).
What the court held
The Supreme Court held that to be patentable, an improvement must be more than a "mere workshop improvement": it must independently satisfy the test of invention, producing a new result, a new article, or a better or cheaper article than before, in a manner not obvious to a person skilled in the art. Grouping old integers together, or putting an old device to a new use, does not qualify. The patent was held invalid for want of inventive step.
Subsequent treatment
This is arguably the most frequently cited patent authority in India. It has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court, the Delhi and Madras High Courts and the erstwhile IPAB for over four decades, and it anchors the obviousness analysis in modern decisions on both mechanical and pharmaceutical patents. No superior forum has diluted its ratio; later cases have only elaborated the "person skilled in the art" framework it introduced.
Practical impact
For businesses, the case sets the baseline question every Indian patent filing must survive: does the claimed advance involve genuine technical ingenuity, or is it something a competent workman would arrive at in the ordinary course? Patent drafting, prosecution responses and invalidity strategy in India all continue to be built around this standard.
2. Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1
Background
Novartis sought an Indian patent for the beta-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of its blockbuster cancer therapy Glivec. The application was rejected by the Patent Office and the IPAB under Section 3(d), and the matter reached the Supreme Court after Novartis also unsuccessfully challenged the provision's constitutionality before the Madras High Court.
Statutory provisions
Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, as amended in 2005, excludes from patentability a new form of a known substance that does not result in enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance. The provision is India's TRIPS-era legislative response to the "evergreening" of pharmaceutical patents through trivial reformulations.
What the court held
The Supreme Court held that for pharmaceutical substances, "efficacy" in Section 3(d) means therapeutic efficacy, to be judged strictly. Improved flow properties, thermodynamic stability or hygroscopicity of the new form did not qualify, and on the evidence the claimed form's increased bioavailability had not been shown to translate into enhanced therapeutic effect — although the Court left open that bioavailability gains could satisfy the test in a case where such translation is properly demonstrated by research data. Importantly, the Court also clarified that Section 3(d) does not bar all incremental pharmaceutical innovation; it bars only those increments that fail the efficacy threshold.
Subsequent treatment
The decision has never been doubted by any later bench. It is applied whenever a Section 3(d) objection arises in prosecution or revocation, was central to the reasoning in the Roche v. Cipla line of cases, and is cited internationally as a model for balancing patent incentives against public-health access.
Practical impact
Pharmaceutical innovators filing in India must build efficacy data into their strategy from the outset: comparative therapeutic data against the known substance is often decisive. For generic manufacturers, Section 3(d) as construed in Novartis remains a powerful invalidity and pre-grant opposition tool. Our patent practice routinely advises on structuring specifications and evidence to address this threshold.
3. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13619 (DB)
Background
Roche sued Cipla in 2008 over Cipla's generic launch of Erlocip, alleging infringement of its patent IN 196774 covering the lung-cancer compound erlotinib hydrochloride (marketed as Tarceva). The Single Judge famously refused an interim injunction on public-interest grounds — the price differential between the two drugs was stark — in one of India's most-discussed applications of interlocutory injunction principles to life-saving medicines. The suit then proceeded to full trial and appeal.
Statutory provisions
The litigation engaged Section 48 (rights of the patentee), Section 64 (revocation grounds raised in Cipla's counterclaim), and Section 107 (defences), together with the general law on interim injunctions in patent suits.
What the court held
The Division Bench held that Roche's claim covered the erlotinib hydrochloride compound as such, not any single polymorphic form; since Cipla's Erlocip was one polymorphic form of that compound, it infringed. The court upheld the patent's validity, rejected the revocation counterclaim, and laid down a structured infringement methodology — construe the claims first, then map the claims to the defendant's product — while declining injunctive relief given the patent's imminent expiry and instead directing rendition of accounts.
Subsequent treatment
Cipla's Special Leave Petition was admitted by the Supreme Court in 2016, but the appeal was never decided on merits: the parties settled on 30 May 2017, Cipla withdrew the petition and acknowledged the validity of Roche's patent rights, bringing the decade-long litigation to a close. The Division Bench's findings therefore stand undisturbed, and its claim-construction and claim-mapping framework — along with the Single Judge's public-interest analysis at the interim stage — continues to be applied in Indian pharmaceutical patent litigation.
Practical impact
The case is the practical playbook for patent infringement suits in India: claim breadth is determined by construction, not by the patentee's commercial embodiment, and later-filed polymorph applications do not narrow an earlier compound claim. It also signals that Indian courts may prefer monetary remedies over injunctions where public interest or imminent expiry weighs against restraint — a critical input for launch and enforcement strategy on both sides of the originator–generic divide.
4. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 797
Background
Bajaj alleged that TVS's 125cc "Flame" motorcycle infringed its patent for twin-spark-plug engine technology (DTS-i). The litigation before the Madras High Court became mired at the interlocutory stage — injunction granted by the Single Judge, reversed by the Division Bench — with years consumed before any trial on the merits. It was in the parallel High Court proceedings that the "pith and marrow" (purposive construction) doctrine was extensively discussed in comparing the rival engine technologies.
Statutory provisions
The Supreme Court's directions operate on procedure — Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applied to patent suits — and serve the object of Sections 104–115 of the Patents Act (suits for infringement and reliefs).
What the court held
The Supreme Court, troubled that IP litigation in India was being fought and effectively decided at the interim stage, directed that suits relating to patents, trademarks and copyrights be proceeded with expeditiously — hearings conducted day to day, and matters involving interim orders decided finally within a strict timeframe rather than languishing for years. It disposed of the appeal by permitting TVS to sell its product subject to accounting safeguards, and ordered the suit itself to be decided swiftly.
Subsequent treatment
The expedition directions are routinely invoked before every Indian court hearing IP disputes and influenced the institutional shift toward specialised, time-bound IP adjudication — the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 framework and the Delhi High Court's Intellectual Property Division (2021) both reflect its philosophy. The decision has not been disturbed.
Practical impact
Litigants can — and should — press for time-bound trial schedules in patent suits, and courts increasingly resist allowing interlocutory skirmishes to substitute for trial. For businesses facing infringement in India, this materially improves the realistic prospect of a final merits decision within a commercially relevant horizon.
5. Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., (2019) 3 SCC 381
Background
A licensing dispute over Bt cotton seed technology escalated when a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in what were essentially summary proceedings arising from interim applications, held Monsanto's patent invalid on the ground that the claimed nucleic-acid sequence technology fell within the Section 3(j) exclusion for essentially biological processes and plant material.
Statutory provisions
Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, 1970 excludes plants and animals (other than micro-organisms), including seeds and essentially biological processes for their production. Section 64 prescribes the grounds and procedure for revocation, and the case also sits alongside the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 as the alternative protection regime.
What the court held
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's summary invalidation. Whether a biotechnology claim falls within Section 3(j) is a complex, mixed question of law, science and fact that requires trial, expert evidence and the procedural discipline of Section 64 — it cannot be decided at an interlocutory stage on written submissions. The suit was restored for full trial before the Single Judge, with the interim arrangement between the parties continuing.
Subsequent treatment
The decision remains the controlling authority on procedural rigour in revocation and is regularly invoked by patentees resisting summary invalidation, in biotechnology and beyond. Its insistence on expert evidence for technically complex subject matter has shaped case management in the Delhi High Court's IP Division.
Practical impact
Patent owners in agritech and biotech gained meaningful procedural protection: an Indian patent cannot be extinguished on the papers. Conversely, challengers must be prepared to build a full evidentiary record. The substantive boundary of Section 3(j) for genetic technologies remains open terrain — making claim strategy at the drafting stage decisive for enforceability.
6. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Competition Commission of India (2016 Single Judge; 2023 Division Bench; SLPs dismissed 2025)
Background
Indian handset makers (Micromax, Intex and others) complained to the Competition Commission of India that Ericsson's licensing of its standard essential patents (SEPs) on 2G/3G technologies breached its FRAND commitments and amounted to abuse of dominance. The CCI ordered investigations; Ericsson (and later Monsanto, in a parallel matter) challenged the CCI's jurisdiction by writ.
Statutory provisions
The clash lay between Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance) and the Patents Act's own machinery for policing patentee conduct — notably Chapter XVI on compulsory licensing (including Section 84(6)(iv), which requires the Controller to consider anti-competitive practices) and Section 140 on restrictive licence conditions.
What the court held
The Single Judge in 2016 held that the two regimes operated in parallel and the CCI's jurisdiction was not ousted. On appeal, the Division Bench on 13 July 2023 reversed course: the Patents Act, particularly after the 2003 insertion of Chapter XVI, is a complete code and the special statute governing allegations of anti-competitive conduct arising from the exercise of patent rights, and as lex specialis it prevails over the general Competition Act. The CCI's investigations against Ericsson and Monsanto were quashed.
Subsequent treatment
The CCI carried the matter to the Supreme Court (SLP(C) No. 25026/2023 and connected matters). On 2 September 2025, a bench of Pardiwala and Mehta, JJ. dismissed the petitions by a non-speaking order — noting, among other things, that the underlying disputes had been settled — while keeping the question of law open. As a non-speaking dismissal, the order is not a declaration of law under Article 141, but the Division Bench judgment stands as the operative position, and the NCLAT has since followed the same line in ousting CCI jurisdiction over patent-related conduct (November 2025). The jurisdictional boundary may yet be revisited in a future live dispute.
Practical impact
For SEP holders, FRAND and royalty disputes in India are today fought in civil courts and before the patent authorities, not the CCI — a significant strategic shift for telecom, IoT and automotive licensing. Implementers alleging excessive or discriminatory royalties must frame their case within patent-law remedies (including compulsory licensing under Section 84) rather than competition complaints. Because the Supreme Court left the question open, licensing programmes should still be structured to withstand competition-law scrutiny if the issue is reopened.
Summary: current status of each judgment
| Judgment | Forum | Core provision(s) | Status (as of July 2026) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bishwanath Prasad v. Hindustan Metal Industries (1979) | Supreme Court | Inventive step — now S. 2(1)(ja), 64(1)(f) | Undisturbed; foundational and consistently followed |
| Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013) | Supreme Court | S. 3(d) — therapeutic efficacy | Undisturbed; consistently applied |
| F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla (2015) | Delhi HC (DB) | S. 48, 64, 107 — infringement framework | SLP withdrawn on 2017 settlement; findings stand and are followed |
| Bajaj Auto v. TVS Motor (2009) | Supreme Court | Procedure — expeditious disposal | Undisturbed; institutionally influential |
| Monsanto v. Nuziveedu Seeds (2019) | Supreme Court | S. 3(j), 64 — revocation procedure | Undisturbed; controlling on procedure |
| Ericsson v. CCI (2016 / 2023 / 2025) | Delhi HC; SC (SLP) | S. 84, 140 Patents Act; S. 3–4 Competition Act | 2023 DB ruling operative; CCI's SLPs dismissed Sept 2025 with question of law kept open |
Read our related guides on landmark trademark judgments and landmark design law judgments, or learn more about our patent services and IP litigation practice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is the most important patent judgment in India?
Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries (1979) 2 SCC 511 is generally regarded as the foundational Indian patent judgment. It laid down the test for inventive step — that a patent cannot be granted for a mere workshop improvement obvious to a person skilled in the art — and it remains the starting point of every obviousness analysis under the Patents Act, 1970.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Novartis v. Union of India?
In Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court refused a patent for the beta-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate (Glivec). It held that under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, a new form of a known substance is patentable only if it demonstrates enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The decision is India's principal safeguard against 'evergreening' of pharmaceutical patents and remains good law.
Is the Roche v. Cipla patent dispute still ongoing?
No. After the Delhi High Court Division Bench held in November 2015 that Cipla's Erlocip infringed Roche's erlotinib hydrochloride patent, Cipla filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The parties reached a settlement on 30 May 2017, Cipla withdrew its petition and acknowledged the validity of Roche's patent, and all related litigation ceased. The Division Bench's claim-construction and infringement methodology, however, continues to be applied by Indian courts.
Can the Competition Commission of India investigate patent licensing disputes?
Following the Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment of 13 July 2023 in the Ericsson and Monsanto matters, the Patents Act, 1970 — particularly Chapter XVI — prevails as the special statute governing allegations of anti-competitive conduct arising from the exercise of patent rights, ousting CCI investigations in that sphere. The Supreme Court dismissed the CCI's special leave petitions on 2 September 2025 through a non-speaking order, leaving the question of law formally open, so the Division Bench ruling is the operative position today.
Can an Indian court revoke a patent at the interim stage without trial?
No. In Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (2019) 3 SCC 381, the Supreme Court held that complex patentability questions — such as whether a claim is an 'essentially biological process' excluded under Section 3(j) — cannot be summarily decided at an interlocutory stage. Revocation requires a full trial with expert evidence and the procedural safeguards of Section 64.
Disclaimer: This article is a general professional overview prepared by IntellexIP Advocates for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created by reading it. Case status and citations should be independently verified against certified judgment texts before reliance in any proceeding. For advice on a specific matter, please contact our team.