India

The Indian Patent Office (IPO), under the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, is the competent authority for patents in India. The Indian patent system provides only invention patents with a 20-year term and does not have a utility model system. Indian patent law is distinctive in the way it balances incentives for innovation against public health, technological access, and domestic industrial policy, which is why its approach—especially in pharmaceuticals and software—has long been viewed as one of the most policy-sensitive patent regimes in the world.

In the pharmaceutical field, Section 3(d) of the Patents Act has become one of the most internationally discussed provisions in patent law. It is aimed at curbing "evergreening": new forms of known substances—such as salts, polymorphs, esters, isomers, metabolites, particle-size variants, and similar derivatives—will generally not be patentable unless they can demonstrate a significant enhancement in "efficacy" over the known substance. For this reason, many secondary or improvement patents that might be granted in the U.S. or Europe face a much tougher path in India. In the field of software and computer-related inventions, Section 3(k) expressly excludes "a computer programme per se," mathematical methods, and business methods. Although the Indian Patent Office has continued to issue guidance on the examination of computer-related inventions, the overall position remains that claims cannot rest merely on abstract algorithms or business logic; they must reflect identifiable technical features and technical effect.

India's opposition, working, and public-interest-oriented mechanisms are equally distinctive. The system retains both pre-grant opposition and post-grant opposition, with pre-grant opposition in particular remaining a highly effective procedural tool in pharmaceuticals and other competitive sectors. India also continues to require statements regarding the "working" of patents (Form 27), although recent rule amendments have materially changed the filing cycle, content requirements, and compliance framework. Accordingly, companies building or maintaining Indian patent portfolios must assess their compliance obligations against the latest rules rather than relying on older practice assumptions. Combined with India's public-interest-oriented compulsory licensing regime, these features make the Indian patent system not merely a protection regime, but a strategic jurisdiction that strongly emphasises implementation, accessibility, and policy balance.