Jan Vishwas Act, 2026: Transforming India's Patent Punishment Framework

 Effective June 1, 2026, the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 has introduced significant reforms to Chapter XX of the Patents Act, 1970. These amendments represent a pivotal shift in how India balances patent compliance obligations with ease of doing business. Rather than introducing sweeping new regulations, the amendments refine existing provisions, reflecting a measured approach to modernizing India's patent enforcement landscape while maintaining robust protections for sensitive inventions.

This article examines the three primary amendments, their immediate implications, and the strategic considerations they impose on patent stakeholders across India.

---

Part I: The Amendments Explained

1. Semantic Reframing: From Penalties to Punishments

The Change:

• Old Heading: "Penalties"
• New Heading: "Punishments"

What This Means:

The decision to replace "Penalties" with "Punishments" is far more than cosmetic nomenclature. It reflects a deliberate legislative choice to reframe the nature of enforcement within Chapter XX.

The term "penalties" often connotes administrative or civil consequences—fines, sanctions, or compliance orders that can be negotiated or mitigated. In contrast, "punishments" invokes a more formal criminal framework, suggesting that contraventions of patent law carry moral culpability and societal deterrence rationales comparable to other criminal statutes.

This semantic shift underscores the legislature's intent to:

• Emphasize the gravity of patent violations
• Signal a stronger deterrent approach to infringement and non-compliance
• Align patent enforcement with the language of criminal responsibility

For practitioners and patent agents, this linguistic adjustment serves as a reminder that violations are not merely technical breaches but conduct warranting criminal consequences. This framing may influence how courts interpret penalties under the chapter and could affect sentencing considerations in prosecutions.

---

2. Section 118 – The New Discretionary Safeguard

The Background:

Section 39 of the Patents Act, 1970 imposes a critical obligation on Indian residents: inventions must not be applied for abroad without first obtaining permission from the Central Government. This provision exists to protect innovations of national importance, particularly in defence, atomic energy, and other sensitive sectors.

The Earlier Position:

Violations of Section 39—filing an invention abroad without prior clearance—automatically attracted criminal punishment under Section 118, including imprisonment and fines.

The Amendment:

A new proviso now provides:

"Contravention of Section 39 shall not attract punishment under Section 118 if the Central Government opines that the invention was not relevant to defence or atomic energy at the time of contravention."

What Changes:

This amendment introduces government discretion as a mitigating factor. Rather than automatic criminalization, inventors can now seek (or receive ex post facto) a determination from the Central Government that their invention falls outside sensitive categories. If such a determination is made, the statutory punishment is avoided.

The Implications:

For Inventors & Patent Applicants:

• Reduced Risk in Non-Sensitive Domains: Inadvertent violations—such as a researcher filing abroad without realizing the bureaucratic requirement—no longer automatically result in criminal liability if the invention poses no security risk.
• Fairness & Proportionality: The amendment reflects recognition that blanket criminalization of Section 39 breaches is disproportionate when the underlying security rationale is absent.
• Strategic Opportunity: Inventors facing potential Section 118 prosecution can petition the government to certify that their invention is non-sensitive, potentially triggering the proviso.

For the Government:

• Flexibility in Enforcement: The discretion allows the government to pursue cases involving genuinely sensitive technologies while offering leniency where national interests are not at stake.
• Resource Optimization: Criminal prosecution becomes a targeted tool rather than an automatic consequence.

Cautionary Note: The proviso does not eliminate the requirement to seek permission under Section 39. Inventors must still comply with the statutory obligation. The amendment merely softens the punitive consequences if compliance is breached and the invention turns out to be non-sensitive.

---

3. Section 119 – Elimination of Register Falsification Offence

What Was Section 119:

Section 119 previously criminalized the falsification of entries in the patent register, with penalties including:

• Imprisonment up to 2 years
• Fine
• Or both

This provision addressed scenarios where applicants, agents, or officials made false or fraudulent entries in official patent records.

The Amendment:

The entire section has been omitted from the Patents Act.

Why This Matters:

Loss of Patent-Specific Liability:

• Patent law no longer carries a dedicated criminal provision for register falsification.
• Such conduct is no longer uniquely prosecutable under the Patents Act.

Alternative Routes for Prosecution: Falsification does not go unpunished; rather, it shifts to broader legal frameworks under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:

• BNS Section 191: Punishment for false evidence and fabricated statements.
• BNS Section 318: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• BNS Section 226: Forgery and use of forged documents.
• BNS Section 227: Using a document as genuine when it is known to be forged.
• Other forgery, fraud, and criminal intimidation provisions under the BNS.

Streamlining & Deduplication: The omission reflects a legislative preference to eliminate overlapping offences. Rather than maintaining duplicate criminal liability under both the Patents Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, enforcement now relies on general penal statutes that cover similar misconduct across multiple regulatory domains.

Practical Consequence: While the removal might appear to be a softening of penalties, the criminal law exposure remains—it is simply prosecuted under BNS provisions rather than patent-specific statutes. The BNS, which came into effect on July 1, 2023, provides comparable or even enhanced protections and penalties for fraudulent conduct, forgery, and false statements across all sectors.

---

Part II: Practical Implications for Stakeholders

A. Patent Agents & Legal Practitioners

Compliance Burden Reduction:

• Inadvertent Section 39 violations in non-sensitive areas are no longer automatically criminal.
• Practitioners should educate clients about the discretionary safeguard available under amended Section 118.

Updated Advisories Required:

• Client advice on Section 39 compliance must now distinguish between sensitive and non-sensitive inventions.
• For cases already in litigation, the amendment may present grounds for leniency applications or reviews.
• Practitioners should maintain documentation of an invention's non-sensitive nature to support any potential government petition.

Documentation Practices:

• Maintain comprehensive records of client consultations, especially when advising on foreign filing strategies.
• Ensure clear documentation of representations made to clients regarding patent law compliance.

Training Implications:

• Internal training programs must be updated to reflect the new proviso under Section 118.
• The omission of Section 119 means register falsification issues are no longer unique patent-law concerns.

---

B. Patent Applicants & Inventors

Reduced Exposure for Inadvertent Violations:

• If you have filed abroad without prior Section 39 permission, exposure to criminal liability is mitigated if your invention is non-sensitive.
• Consider proactively seeking Central Government certification that your invention is non-sensitive if you are concerned about past violations.

Operational Adjustments:

• Continue to comply with Section 39's requirement for prior permission—the amendment does not repeal this obligation.
• For sensitive sectors (defence, atomic energy), heightened caution remains essential.
• Maintain transparent communication with patent counsel regarding the nature and intended use of inventions.

Relief in Retrospective Scenarios:

• Inventors who previously violated Section 39 unwittingly may find relief under the new proviso, particularly if the innovation operates in non-sensitive domains.

---

C. Litigation & Enforcement Landscape

Narrowed Scope of Criminal Offences:

• Patent-specific criminal liability is now confined to Section 118 (with the new proviso) and other chapters.
• The removal of Section 119 eliminates one avenue for patent-focused prosecution.

Implications for Patent Infringement Cases:

• Criminal remedies under the Patents Act are now more limited.
• Parties must rely on the BNS for criminal prosecution of register falsification or associated fraudulent conduct.

Procedural Considerations:

• Courts may see fewer patent-specific criminal prosecutions, particularly for register falsification.
• The burden of proof and standard of evidence for BNS prosecutions may differ from what Section 119 imposed.
• Practitioners must be familiar with the procedural framework under the BNS, which superseded the IPC on July 1, 2023.

Settlement & Negotiation:

• Reduced criminal exposure may influence settlement negotiations in patent disputes.
• Parties may be more inclined to settle matters that previously carried acute criminal risk.

---

D. Policy & Legislative Implications

Broader Ease-of-Compliance Agenda: The Jan Vishwas Act, 2026 amendments align with the Indian government's broader "ease of doing business" initiatives. The amendments signal:

• A recognition that blanket criminalization can stifle innovation and international collaboration.
• A preference for proportionate enforcement tied to genuine national security concerns.
• Confidence in using discretionary government mechanisms to balance innovation with security.

Future Legislative Trends: These amendments may presage further rationalization of criminal statutes in intellectual property law, with a shift toward:

• Risk-based enforcement.
• Discretionary safeguards for non-sensitive sectors.
• Reliance on general penal law rather than statute-specific offences.

---

Part III: Strategic Considerations for Compliance

1. Government Discretion Under Section 118

Key Question: How will the Central Government exercise its opinion that an invention is "not relevant to defence or atomic energy"?

Recommendations:

• Patent applicants should maintain clear documentation of an invention's intended use and commercial applications.
• For inventors uncertain about sensitivity, consider obtaining a written no-objection or a certified opinion from the government prior to filing abroad.
• Engage with the government's patent office and relevant sectoral regulators (e.g., Department of Defence, Atomic Energy Commission) proactively for clarification.

Monitoring:

• Await guidance from the Government of India on the procedure for invoking the Section 118 proviso.
• Track judicial interpretations of what constitutes "relevant to defence or atomic energy."

2. Register Falsification: A Shift in Prosecutorial Strategy

Awareness:

• Parties involved in litigation must recognize that register falsification allegations will now be prosecuted under the IPC rather than the Patents Act.
• Defence strategies must account for IPC defences and procedural rules.

Internal Compliance:

• Patent offices and applicants must maintain rigorous accuracy in register entries to avoid both IPC liability and administrative sanctions.
• Implement quality assurance measures to prevent inadvertent errors that could be characterized as falsification.

3. Anticipating Regulatory Guidance

Outstanding Questions:

• Will the government publish guidelines on the discretionary safeguard under Section 118?
• What is the procedural timeline for government assessment under the new proviso?
• Are there precedents or standards for determining "relevance to defence or atomic energy"?

Action Items:

• Monitor official notices and guidance from the Indian Patent Office and the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion.
• Participate in stakeholder consultations if the government seeks input on implementation.

---

Part IV: Conclusions & Looking Ahead

Summary of Key Changes

Amendment	Aspect	Old Framework	New Framework	Impact
Heading	Nomenclature	"Penalties"	"Punishments"	Strengthened deterrent messaging; criminal rather than administrative framing
Section 118	Section 39 Contraventions	Automatic punishment	Discretionary relief if non-sensitive	Reduced exposure for inadvertent violations in non-defence/non-atomic sectors
Section 119	Register Falsification	Patent-specific criminal offence (2 years imprisonment)	Omitted; prosecuted under IPC	Streamlined enforcement; reliance on general penal law

Broader Policy Perspective

The Jan Vishwas Act, 2026 amendments represent a sophisticated calibration of India's patent enforcement regime. Rather than wholesale deregulation, the changes reflect:

1. Targeted Relief: Leniency is extended only where genuine national security concerns are absent, preserving protection for sensitive sectors.
2. Proportionality: Criminal liability is now more closely tied to actual harm or risk, rather than technical violation.
3. Modernization: The reliance on general penal law under the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) reduces redundancy and aligns patent enforcement with broader criminal statutes. This approach reflects the contemporary legal framework following the BNS's implementation on July 1, 2023.

For Practitioners & Stakeholders

The amendments demand:

• Updated Compliance Manuals: Revise client advisories to reflect the new proviso under Section 118 and the omission of Section 119.
• Revised Training Programs: Ensure staff understand the discretionary nature of Section 118 enforcement and the shift to IPC-based liability for register falsification.
• Proactive Government Engagement: For uncertain cases, seek clarification from the Central Government on whether an invention qualifies for relief under the Section 118 proviso.
• Enhanced Documentation: Maintain comprehensive records of an invention's nature, use, and non-sensitive characteristics to support any potential government petition.

Outlook

As the amendments take effect, several developments will warrant monitoring:

• Judicial Interpretation: How courts interpret "relevant to defence or atomic energy" will shape the scope of the Section 118 proviso.
• Government Guidance: Official procedures and timelines for invoking the discretionary safeguard remain to be clarified.
• Enforcement Trends: The frequency and nature of prosecutions under amended Chapter XX will provide insights into how the government implements the new framework.

---

Conclusion

The Jan Vishwas Act, 2026 amendments to Chapter XX represent a balanced approach to modernizing India's patent punishment framework. By introducing discretionary relief for non-sensitive inventions, streamlining overlapping offences, and reframing penalties as punishments, the legislature has signaled a commitment to both ease of compliance and robust protection of national interests.

For patent applicants, agents, and legal practitioners, the amendments present both opportunities and obligations. The opportunity lies in reduced exposure for inadvertent violations in non-sensitive sectors; the obligation lies in maintaining heightened vigilance for sensitive inventions and in staying abreast of government guidance on the new discretionary frameworks.

As India's innovation ecosystem continues to expand, these amendments position patent law as a tool that encourages innovation while safeguarding national security—a balance increasingly essential in a competitive global landscape.

Delhi HC Dismisses BlackBerry Patent Appeal: Colour-Coding Email Recipients Not Patentable Under Section 3(k) as Computer Programme Per Se

The Delhi High Court has dismissed BlackBerry's long-pending patent appeal, holding that an invention for colour-coding email recipients based on domain names does not constitute a patentable "technical effect" and falls squarely within the exclusion for computer programmes per se under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court also upheld the Controller's finding of lack of inventive step in view of three prior art documents.

I. Background and the Invention

BlackBerry Limited, the Canadian multinational known for its enterprise software and smartphones, filed Indian Patent Application No. 1976/DEL/2008 on 20 August 2008, claiming priority from European Patent Application No. 07117003.9 filed on 21 September 2007. The application was titled "Colour Differentiating a Portion of a Text Message Shown in a Listing on a Handheld Communication Device."

The invention addressed a practical problem familiar to smartphone users: on a handheld device with a small screen, it is difficult to quickly identify intended recipients of an outgoing email — particularly to distinguish internal recipients (same domain) from external ones. The proposed solution was to dynamically colour-code recipient names in the address field of an outgoing message based on the host name or domain name of each recipient's email address, enabling the sender to instantly spot any unintended external recipients before sending.

The invention claimed a method by which: (i) a message address is examined to extract the host/domain name; (ii) recipient names are displayed in a colour differentiated by their respective domain affiliation; and (iii) this colour-coding occurs in real-time as the user composes the message — not merely after receipt.

II. Procedural History

The journey of this application through the Indian patent system spans 18 years:

- 2008: Application filed at the Delhi Patent Office

- 2009: Published under Section 11A

- 2014: First Examination Report — objections under Sections 2(1)(j) and 3(k)

- 2015: Response filed by BlackBerry's agent

- August 2019: Hearing; oral Section 3(k) objections; post-hearing submissions filed

- October 2019: Impugned Order I — application refused

- November 2019: Review Petition filed under Sections 77(1)(f) and 15

- March 2020: Impugned Order II — Review dismissed

- 2022: Appeal filed before the Delhi HC under Section 117A

- 30 April 2026: Delhi HC dismisses the appeal

 

III. The Prior Art — D1, D2, and D3

 

D1 — EP1767008A1 ("Message Recognition and Display System"): Applies visual identifying styles to *received* messages on mobile devices, categorising them (urgent, family, professional) using message attributes. The Controller held that modifying D1's algorithm to use domain-based recipient categorisation for *outgoing* messages was obvious to a PSITA.

 

D2 — US6671718B1 ("Email Client Application Incorporating an Active Transmit Authorisation Request"): A system alerting users before sending, displaying all recipients for confirmation. Shared the same underlying problem as the Subject Application — preventing messages being sent to unintended recipients.

 

D3 — US2003/0084109A ("Efficient Message Notification System"): Discloses visually distinguishable formats — including colour differentiation — corresponding to different individual users. Cited in the original Hearing Notice, relied upon by the Controller in HC proceedings.

 

IV. BlackBerry's Arguments

BlackBerry advanced four principal lines of argument:

(a) Technical problem and technical solution: The invention solves a genuine technical problem — the inability of handheld devices with limited screen size to allow users to implement desktop-style filters. The solution (real-time domain-based colour coding) is a technical solution to a device-level constraint. Reliance was placed on *Ferid Allani v. Union of India* (2019) for the "technical contribution" test.

 

(b) Inventive step: D1 applies colour coding to *received* messages by content attributes; the Subject Application applies colour coding to *recipients* of *outgoing* messages by *domain names* — a substantively different approach. The Controller's conclusion was criticised as impermissible hindsight reasoning. Reliance was placed on *Enercon v. Aloys Wobben* (Order 123/2013): "most inventions are built with prior known puzzle-pieces" and hindsight deduction is unacceptable.

 

(c) Technical effect: The invention provides improved reliability and security at the device level, reduces user-device interaction steps, and prevents inadvertent disclosure — none of which are merely administrative outcomes.

 

(d) International grants: Corresponding patents had been granted in the US (US8682394B2) and EU (EP2275980B1). BlackBerry also highlighted two successful earlier appeals before this Court: 2025:DHC:3100 and 2024:DHC:6572.

 

V. The Controller's Grounds for Refusal

 

Ground 1 — Lack of inventive step (Section 2(1)(j)):

The difference between D1 (colour coding of received messages by message attributes) and the Subject Application (colour coding of outgoing recipients by domain name) was held to be a "superficial" algorithmic distinction obvious to a PSITA combining the teachings of D1 and D2.

 

Ground 2 — Section 3(k):

The invention's contribution lies entirely in a software algorithm. It does not affect hardware performance or modify how the device processor operates. The "technical problem" of sending to the wrong person was characterised as a human/administrative error, not a universal technical problem. The Impugned Order stated:

"A technical problem is universal in nature and technicality is not varied person to person. For example noise in a communication system. Here every person faces the same noise problem... But an error in sending a message with respect to recipient cannot be considered a technical problem because it depends on the person sending the message."*

 

VI. The Delhi High Court's Analysis

 

Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the appeal on both grounds.

On inventive step: The Court accepted the Controller's analysis. D1, D2, and D3 read together rendered the Subject Application obvious. The algorithmic difference between D1's categorisation (urgent/family/professional) and the Subject Application's categorisation (by domain name) was a straightforward modification for a PSITA. This was legitimate mosaicking — not impermissible hindsight.

On Section 3(k): The Court applied the "technical effect / technical contribution" test from *Ferid Allani*, *Microsoft Technology Licensing* (Madras HC 2024), and the CRI Guidelines, holding:

"The algorithm in the present invention is only related to colour coding on the basis of message characteristic and is not enhancing the system's functionality. The present invention relates to CRI, but does not result in a 'technical effect' that improves the system's functionality and efficacy at the hardware level."

 

The Court observed that even after implementation, the user could still send a message to the wrong person (e.g., where multiple recipients share the same domain and different colours are assigned). The sole hardware element — the wireless communication device — executed the algorithm "in the same conventional manner it executes any other algorithm."

 

VII. Critical Legal Analysis

The "universal technical problem" test: The judgment endorses a universality criterion — a technical problem must affect all users of a system uniformly (like signal noise). A problem that varies by user behaviour is administrative, not technical. This is stricter than the European problem-solution approach.

Hardware performance as the primary metric: The Court applies a hardware-centric test — the invention must improve the performance or functionality of the hardware itself. A software layer operating on unchanged hardware, regardless of practical utility, does not satisfy this test.

International grants not decisive: US and EU grants carried no weight. Indian patentability standards — particularly Section 3(k) — are distinct from other jurisdictions.

Tension with prior BlackBerry wins: The distinction from 2025:DHC:3100 and 2024:DHC:6572 (where BlackBerry succeeded) appears to be that in those cases, the technical effect was demonstrably linked to hardware-level improvements, whereas here the effect remained confined to the display/UI layer without affecting device performance.

VIII. Practical Implications

1. Claim drafting: For UI-related computer-implemented inventions, claims must articulate a hardware-level technical effect — not merely improved user convenience. Describe how the invention modifies processor operation, memory use, or communication subsystems.

2. Specification strategy: Where the Background section describes the problem in human/administrative terms, it undermines the argument for a technical solution. Frame the technical problem in device-constraint terms from the outset.

3. Prior art strategy: Distinguish prior art on the inventive concept, not just at which stage of a workflow a known technique is applied (send vs. receive). Demonstrate why the combination would not have occurred to a PSITA without knowledge of the invention.

4. Alternative protection: Where Section 3(k) is likely, consider:

- Design registration for the GUI (particularly following *NEC Corporation v. Controller*, Calcutta HC, March 2026)

- Copyright for the underlying software as a literary work

- Trade secrets for the algorithm itself

5. Section 3(k) objections are not formalities. This judgment confirms that the Delhi HC will uphold reasoned Controller findings on the absence of hardware-level technical effect. Engage Section 3(k) objections substantively from the FER stage.

 

IX. Consistency with Precedents

Consistent with (upholding Section 3(k) refusals):

- *Blackberry Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs* (2024:DHC:6571)

- *Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC One Microsoft Way v. Assistant Controller of Patents, Patent Office * (Madras HC, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 2785)

In tension with (Section 3(k) grants):

- *Blackberry Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs * (2025:DHC:3100 and 2024:DHC:6572)

- *Ferid Allani v. Union of India* (2019)

- *Comviva Technologies v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs * (2024:DHC:8990)

 

The distinguishing factor in the successful cases appears to be whether the invention modified hardware behaviour or merely operated as a software layer on unchanged hardware.

X. Significance and Conclusion

Three points make this judgment significant:

First, it applies Section 3(k) to a real-world commercial invention from a major global technology company — brand recognition provides no shelter from patentability exclusions.

Second, it crystallises a two-pronged test: (i) does the invention solve a *universal* technical problem (not a variable human/administrative one), and (ii) does it produce a technical effect at the *hardware performance level*?

Third, it underscores India's divergence from global standards for software-implemented inventions — US and EU grants for corresponding applications were given no weight.

For practitioners, this judgment reinforces the importance of patent specification drafting that front-loads technical effect language, frames problems in device-constraint terms, and identifies concrete hardware-level outcomes. For businesses relying on software-implemented inventions, a multi-layered IP strategy — combining patents (where technically framed), design registrations, copyright, and trade secrets — remains the most resilient approach in India.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Form 27: Everything a Patentee and Licensee Must Know About Statement of Commercial Working in India; Compliance Deadline: 30 September

 ABSTRACT

Form 27 is a statutory obligation under Section 146(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 requiring every patentee and licensee to file a statement of commercial working of the patented invention in India. With the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024 coming into effect from 15 March 2024, the filing frequency has changed from annual to once every three financial years. For most existing patents, the first consolidated deadline under the new regime falls on 30 September 2026. This article explains the legal framework, the revised filing timelines, who must file, what information must be furnished, the consequences of non-compliance (including the revised monetary penalties under the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023), the indicative professional fee structure for filing, and the documentary requirements that practitioners should gather from clients in advance of the deadline.

I.  Legal Framework and Purpose

Form 27 is not a voluntary disclosure — it is a statutory obligation under Section 146(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, read with Rule 131(1) of the Patents Rules, 2003, as amended. The provision empowers the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to require patentees and licensees to furnish information regarding the extent to which the patented invention is being commercially worked in India.

The rationale behind the requirement is rooted in the patent bargain: the State grants a limited monopoly in exchange for disclosure of the invention and the expectation that the invention will be worked within the country, thereby benefiting the Indian public. Where an invention is not worked or is inadequately worked, the Patents Act provides mechanisms — most notably compulsory licensing under Section 84 — to correct that imbalance. Form 27 disclosures provide the factual foundation for any such compulsory licence proceedings.

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 amended Section 122 of the Patents Act to introduce monetary penalties for non-compliance, replacing the earlier criminal liability. This shift underscores the seriousness with which the legislature treats Form 27 obligations, while making enforcement more practical for regulators.

 

II.  Who Must File Form 27?

The obligation to file Form 27 rests on every patentee and every licensee in India. This includes:

•       Individual inventors holding a granted Indian patent

•       Companies, LLPs, partnerships, universities, and government bodies that are patentees

•       Exclusive licensees and non-exclusive licensees under a granted Indian patent

•       Foreign patentees whose inventions are protected by an Indian patent grant

 

Importantly, both the patentee and any licensee may file Form 27 independently and simultaneously for the same patent. There is no bar on multiple stakeholders filing separate statements. A patentee or licensee may also authorise a registered patent agent or attorney to file Form 27 on their behalf, provided a valid Power of Attorney (Form 26) is on record.

Where a patentee holds multiple patents that are related and granted to the same patentee(s), a single Form 27 may be filed covering all such related patents, thereby reducing the administrative burden.

 

III.  What Changed: The 2024 Amendment Rules

The most significant change introduced by the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024 (effective 15 March 2024) is providing option to opt from annual filings to a triennial (three-year) filing cycle. Under the previous rules, Form 27 was required to be filed annually, within six months of the close of each financial year. This proved burdensome, particularly for large patent portfolios. Annual filing of Form 27 is also available but filing every three years is more cost effective.

Under the amended rules, Form 27 can also be filed once in respect of every period of three consecutive financial years, beginning from the financial year immediately after the patent is granted, with the filing window opening on 1 April following the three-year period and closing on 30 September of that year.

 

Critical Rule:  The new triennial cycle applies prospectively from 15 March 2024. If a patentee failed to file Form 27 for FY 2021-22 or FY 2022-23 within the time limits prescribed under the earlier rules, those missed years cannot be clubbed into the new three-year block. The obligation for those years has lapsed and cannot be revived.

 

This prospective application means practitioners must carefully audit each client's filing history: any gap in annual filings prior to the amendment rules is effectively an irreversible non-compliance for that period and must be noted separately from current obligations.

 

IV.  Filing Deadlines: A Category-Wise Analysis

The filing deadline varies depending on when the patent was granted and when its three-year block commences. The table below consolidates the applicable deadlines for all patent categories:

 

Patent Category	3-Year Block	Base Deadline	Ext. (Rule 131(2))	Ext. (Rule 138)
Granted before FY 2022-23	FY 2023-24 to 2025-26	30 Sep 2026	31 Dec 2026	30 Jun 2027
Granted in FY 2022-23	FY 2023-24 to 2025-26	30 Sep 2026	31 Dec 2026	30 Jun 2027
Granted in FY 2023-24	FY 2024-25 to 2026-27	30 Sep 2027	31 Dec 2027	30 Jun 2028
Granted in FY 2024-25	FY 2025-26 to 2027-28	30 Sep 2028	31 Dec 2028	30 Jun 2029
Expired in FY 2023-24	FY 2023-24 only	30 Sep 2024	31 Dec 2024	30 Jun 2025
Expired in FY 2024-25	FY 2023-24 to 2024-25	30 Sep 2025	31 Dec 2025	30 Jun 2026

 

Note: Where a patentee or licensee does not avail the three-month extension under Rule 131(2), the outer limit for extension under Rule 138 is 31 March of the relevant year — not 30 June. Practitioners should advise clients to always file Form 4 for the Rule 131(2) extension if there is any possibility that the base deadline cannot be met, as this preserves the longer Rule 138 window.

 

V.  What Information Must Be Furnished?

Form 27 requires disclosure of the following information for the three-year reporting period:

A.  Where the Invention Has Been Commercially Worked in India

 

Now only confirmation has to be provided if the Patent is worked in India. No details as to quantum, value, manufacturing, import etc are to be provided.

B.  Where the Invention Has NOT Been Commercially Worked in India

 

The following information has to be provided if the Patented invention is not worked in India.

 [   ] Patented invention is under development/ commercial trial

 [  ] Patented invention is under Review/ approval with regulatory authorities

 [   ] Exploring commercial licensing

 [   ] Any other, may specify 

 C.  Licensing Information

•       Details of any licences granted (voluntary, compulsory, exclusive, or non-exclusive) — including the name of each licensee, their address and nationality

•       Patentee and each licensee have to file a separate Form 27

D. Commercial License:  If willing to commercially license the invention in India, please provide email address and contact number where you can be approached by potential licensee.

VI.  Consequences of Non-Compliance

Non-filing or delayed filing of Form 27 carries the following consequences:

•       Imposition of a monetary penalty under Section 122 of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023 of up to INR 1,00,000 (approximately USD 1,200), with a continuing failure attracting a further penalty of INR 1,000 (approximately USD 12) for each day of continued default

•       Where the statement furnished is false — whether knowingly or without believing it to be true — an enhanced penalty of 0.5% of total turnover or INR 5,00,00,000 (approximately USD 60,000), whichever is lesser, becomes payable

•       Delay cannot be condoned by filing a petition under Rule 137(2), which expressly bars condonation of delay in Form 27 filings

•       Where the filing deadline expired before the commencement of the 2024 Amendment Rules, it is not possible to file Form 27 at all for those periods — the obligation is extinguished with no remedy

•       Non-working or inadequate working disclosures can provide the factual basis for a compulsory licence application under Section 84 by third parties

 

Practitioner's Note:  The prohibition on delay condonation under Rule 137(2) makes Form 27 unique among patent filings. Unlike missed renewal fees or response deadlines, there is no safety net. Practitioners must proactively diarise Form 27 deadlines for every client's patent portfolio and initiate the information-gathering process well before the base deadline — ideally at least three months in advance.

 

VII.  Extension of the Filing Deadline

The deadline for filing Form 27 may be extended in two stages:

•       First stage — Rule 131(2) read with Form 4: An extension of up to three months may be obtained by filing Form 4 along with the prescribed fee, before the expiry of the base deadline. For most patents granted before FY 2023-24, this moves the outer date from 30 September 2026 to 31 December 2026.

•       Second stage — Rule 138: A further extension of up to six months may be obtained by way of a request under Rule 138 along with the prescribed fee and reasons for delay. This extends the outer date to 30 June 2027 for the current reporting block.

•       Important caveat: If the three-month extension under Rule 131(2) is not first availed of, the outer limit available under Rule 138 is restricted to 31 March of the relevant year — not 30 June. Beyond these stages, no further extension is available, and delay cannot be condoned under Rule 137.

 

VIII.  Professional Fees and Filing Costs

While Form 27 itself does not attract a separate Government filing fee where the statement is filed within the base deadline, patentees and licensees should plan for the professional fee payable to their patent agent / attorney for preparation, review and filing of the statement. 

Government Fee / Additional Service Fee  NIL — provided the statement is filed within the base deadline. Extension fees under Rule 131(2) (Form 4) and / or Rule 138 will additionally apply if the filing is delayed beyond the base deadline.

A few practical notes on cost: the per-statement basis applies even where a single Form 27 is filed jointly for multiple related patents (in line with Section 146(2) read with Rule 131(1)) — the fee is not multiplied by the number of patents clubbed. Where the deadline is missed and an extension under Rule 131(2) or Rule 138 becomes necessary, the prescribed Government extension fees will apply over and above the professional fee, and these increase progressively with the length of delay. Out-of-pocket expenses such as notarisation, courier and translation, where required, are charged at actuals.

 

Set against the penalty exposure outlined in Section VI — up to INR 1,00,000, with INR 1,000 per day of continuing default and an enhanced penalty of up to INR 5,00,00,000 / 0.5% of turnover for false statements — timely filing through a registered patent agent remains, by a wide margin, the most cost-effective course of action.

 

IX.  Practical Compliance Checklist for Patentees and Licensees

To ensure timely and complete compliance, patentees and licensees should take the following steps no later than three months before the applicable deadline:

•       Identify all granted Indian patents and determine the applicable three-year reporting block for each

•       Confirm the role in which the statement is being filed — patentee or licensee — and obtain appropriate authorisation

•       Audit the commercial working history for the reporting period and licensing agreements

•       Where the invention has not been worked, document the reasons clearly and in sufficient detail

•       Gather details of all licences granted or sub-licences executed during the reporting period

•       Where multiple related patents are held by the same patentee, confirm whether a consolidated filing is appropriate

•       Verify whether any co-patentees or licensees are filing separate statements for the same patent

•       Engage a registered patent agent or attorney at least 60 days before the deadline to prepare and review the draft Form 27 before submission

 

X.  Conclusion

Form 27 is one of the most frequently overlooked yet consequential obligations in Indian patent practice. The shift to a triennial filing cycle under the 2024 Amendment Rules has simplified the calendar but has also concentrated the compliance burden into a single, non-extendable event with limited relief if missed. For most patentees and licensees holding patents granted before the financial year 2023-24, the immediate deadline is 30 September 2026 — with a possible extension to 31 December 2026 under Rule 131(2) and a final outer limit of 30 June 2027 under Rule 138.

Practitioners are strongly advised to commence the information-gathering process from clients immediately. The absence of any condonation mechanism under Rule 137(2) means that a missed Form 27 deadline is an irrecoverable compliance failure. Proactive engagement, early diarising, and structured client communication are the only effective safeguards.