The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea asking whether a patentee should get additional patent protection where a large part of the 20-year term is lost to delay in granting the patent, challenging a Calcutta High Court judgment that upheld Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, and has sought the help of an amicus curiae.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a special leave petition that seeks consideration of a mechanism for Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) in India, raising the question whether a patentee should receive additional protection where a substantial part of the 20-year term is lost because of delay in granting the patent [Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha and Another v. Union of India and Another].
A Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued the notice in a challenge to a Calcutta High Court judgment upholding Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, under which the term of a patent is 20 years from the date of filing of the application. The Court has asked Advocate Kruttika Vijay to assist it as amicus curiae, and has listed the matter on October 26, 2026. It has not decided the question, and the notice is only a preliminary step.
The dispute
The case concerns a patent application filed on May 2, 2005 and granted only on December 28, 2012, nearly seven years later. The petitioner’s grievance is that although no patent was granted during those years, the seven-year delay kept running against the 20-year statutory term. As reported, a patent granted in December 2012 would ordinarily expire in May 2025 under Section 53, since the term is counted from the 2005 filing date.
The petitioner, who appeared in person, seeks compensation for the period allegedly lost to delay in the grant process, including by extending the patent term. He referred to the United States model of Patent Term Adjustment, under which certain patent-office delays can lead to an adjustment of the term. The issue before the Court is whether a delay in granting a patent can justify extending the statutory monopoly beyond 20 years counted from filing.
The Calcutta High Court’s ruling
The Calcutta High Court declined to accept the petitioner’s argument that the American PTA model should be introduced through judicial intervention. It held that Section 53 and Section 11A(7) operate in different fields. Section 11A(7) deals with the rights available to an applicant after the application is published and before the grant, whereas Section 53 fixes the duration of a patent at 20 years from the date of filing.
The High Court also observed that a new statutory mechanism to compensate applicants for processing delays would essentially need legislation, which a court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot direct. The petitioner then filed the special leave petition in the Supreme Court.
Why it matters
Indian patent law counts the 20-year term from filing, and does not extend it when the patent office takes long to decide. The notice means the Supreme Court will examine whether that rule can be revisited, or whether any adjustment for grant delays is a matter for Parliament, as the High Court held.
The Court has issued notice only, and has not expressed any view on the petitioner’s argument or on the High Court’s reasoning. The outcome, and any effect on other patents, will depend on the Union’s response and on the hearing after October 26.
Case Title: Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha and Another v. Union of India and Another
Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 29, 2026
Appearances: The petitioner appeared in person. Advocate Kruttika Vijay was requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae.