Revocation of Power patents
Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 deals with revocation of Power patents. Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, a patent whether granted before or after the commencement of this Act, may, [be revoked on a petition of any person interested or of the Central Government by on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement of the patent by the High Court] on any of the The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1978.
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, a patent whether granted before or after the commencement of this Act, may, 1[be revoked on a petition of any person interested or of the Central Government by 2*** on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement of the patent by the High Court] on any of the following grounds, that is to say--
(a) that the invention, so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification, was claimed in a valid claim of earlier priority date contained in the complete specification of another patent granted in India;
(b) that the patent was granted on the application of a person not entitled under the provisions of this Act to apply therefor:
3* * * * *
(c) that the patent was obtained wrongfully in contravention of the rights of the petitioner or any person under or through whom he claims;
(d) that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not an invention within the meaning of this Act;
(e) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is not new, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority date of the claim or to what was published in India or elsewhere in any of the documents referred to in section 13:
3* * * * *
(f) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is obvious or does not involve any inventive step, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India or what was published in India or elsewhere before the priority date of the claim:
3* * * * *
(g) that the invention, so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification, is not useful;
(h) that the complete specification does not sufficiently and fairly describe the invention and the method by which it is to be performed, that is to say, that the description of the method or the instructions for the working of the invention as contained in the complete specification are not by themselves sufficient to enable a person in India possessing average skill in, and average knowledge of, the art to which the invention relates, to work the invention, or that it does not disclose the best method of performing it which was known to the applicant for the patent and for which he was entitled to claim, protection;
(i) that the scope of any claim of the complete specification is not sufficiently and clearly defined or that any claim of the complete specification is not fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification;
(j) that the patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation;
(k) that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not patentable under this Act;
(l) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification was secretly used in India, otherwise than as mentioned in sub-section (3), before the priority date of the claim;
(m) that the applicant for the patent has failed to disclose to the Controller the information required by section 8 or has furnished information which in any material particular was false to his knowledge;
(n) that the applicant contravened any direction for secrecy passed under section 35 4[or made or caused to be made an application for the grant of a patent outside India in contravention of section 39];
(o) that leave to amend the complete specification under section 57 or section 58 was obtained by fraud;
4[(p) that the complete specification does not disclose or wrongly mentions the source or geographical origin of biological material used for the invention;
(q) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification was anticipated having regard to the knowledge, oral or otherwise, available within any local or indigenous community in India or elsewhere.]
(2) For the purposes of clauses (e) and (f) of sub-section (1),--
(a) no account shall be taken of 5[personal document or secret trial or secret use]; and
(b) where the patent is for a process or for a product as made by a process described or claimed the importation into India of the product made abroad by that process shall constitute knowledge or use in India of the invention on the date of the importation, except where such importation has been for the purpose of reasonable trial or experiment only.
(3) For the purpose of clause (l) of sub-section (1), no account shall be taken of any use of the invention--
(a) for the purpose of reasonable trial or experiment only; or
(b) by the Government or by any person authorised by the Government or by a Government undertaking, in consequence of the applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives title having communicated or disclosed the invention directly or indirectly to the Government or person authorised as aforesaid or to the Government undertaking; or
(c) by any other person, in consequence of the applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives title having communicated or disclosed the invention, and without the consent or acquiescence of the applicant or of any person from whom he derives title.
(4) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), a patent may be revoked by the High Court on the petition of the Central Government, if the High Court is satisfied that the patentee has without reasonable cause failed to comply with the request of the Central Government to make, use or exercise the patented invention for the purposes of Government within the meaning of section 99 upon reasonable terms.
(5) A notice of any petition for revocation of a patent under this section shall be served on all persons appearing from the register to be proprietors of that patent or to have shares or interests therein and it shall not be necessary to serve a notice on any other person.
Section 64, The Patents Act, 1970 (Act 39 of 1970).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
- s. 8 Information and undertaking regarding foreign applications
- s. 13 Search for anticipation by previous publication and by prior claim
- s. 35 Secrecy directions relating to inventions relevant for defence purposes
- s. 39 Residents not to apply for patents outside India without prior permission
- s. 57 Amendment of application and specification before Controller
- s. 58 Amendment of specification before Appellate Board or High Court
- s. 99 Meaning of use of invention for purposes of Government
Referred to by 5
- s. 40 Liability for contravention of section 35 or section 39
- s. 52 Grant of patent to true and first inventions where it has been obtained by another in fraud of him
- s. 103 Reference to High Court of disputes as to use for purposes of Government
- s. 107 Defences, etc., in suit for infringement
- s. 113 Certificate of validity of specification and costs of subsequent suits for infringement thereof
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Dr. Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-26.pdf 2014-06-02. Index date 2014-06-02; body is the reportable Khehar J. CA 6718/2013 Dr. Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra (2014) 15 SCC 360. DATE-CHECK false-positive VERIFY (not DATE VERIFIED banner) — Ghisalal/Thwaha/Eera pattern; auto DATE-CHECK cites 2012-01-05 / 2006-09-29 / 2008-12-08 which are fact dates inside the named merits (assignment 05.01.2012; IP licence 29.9.2006; termination 8.12.2008). Isolate: Patents s.25 scheme — pre-grant opposition by “any person” (s.25(1)); post-grant opposition by “person interested” within 1 year (s.25(2)); s.25(2) proceedings eclipse s.64 revocation/counter-claim for the same person. Also election between IPAB s.64 petition and HC counter-claim. Map 25 and 64. Do not pad 48/84/107A. Twin order-27.pdf is the same file — use order-26.pdf.
On this section: Patents Act s.64 revocation (or a High Court counter-claim) cannot be pursued by the same person who has already invoked s.25(2) post-grant opposition; the patentee may elect one revocation forum (Aloys Wobben).
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The defendants, in their written statement filed by way of response to the plaint, did not dispute the fact that they were intending to launch Ibrutinib in the market. They, however, invoked Section 107(1)<sup>1</sup> read with Section 64<sup>2</sup> of the Patents Act, 1970, to question the <sup>2</sup> 64. Revocation of patents. – (1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, a patent, whether granted before or after the commencement of this Act, may, be revoked on a petition of any person interested or of the Central …
-
… submits that there could be no question of any claim, or disclosure, of EO in IN 176, as EO was not known a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of Eltrombopag prior to the priority date of IN 161. 10.3 Apropos the challenge to the validity of the suit patent IN 161 on the anvil of Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 64(1)(a) of the Patents Act, Mr. Hemant Singh submits that the scope of any claim had to be seen in the light of the description of the claim and the disclosure in the complete specifications relating to the claim. Coverage of a subsequent invention in the scope of an earlier invention, he submits, does not amount to …
-
… It may be noticed that the application for revocation of a patent in terms of Section 64 of the Patents Act can also to be filed only by "any person interested". In other words, the post-grant opposition and the application for revocation cannot be filed by just about any person who is not shown to be a person who is "interested". A third significant difference is that the representation at the stage of …
Questions about Section 64
What have the courts held on Section 64 of the Patents Act?
Dr. Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra (02 Jun 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Patents Act s.64 revocation (or a High Court counter-claim) cannot be pursued by the same person who has already invoked s.25(2) post-grant opposition; the patentee may elect one revocation forum (Aloys Wobben).
How do I find court cases under Section 64 of the Patents Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Patents Act 64, section 64 Patents Act, section 64 of the Patents Act. People searching for it also type section 64 of patent act 1970. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with Dr. Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra (02 Jun 2014).
What should I read with Section 64 of the Patents Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 8 (Information and undertaking regarding foreign applications), section 13 (Search for anticipation by previous publication and by prior claim), section 35 (Secrecy directions relating to inventions relevant for defence purposes), section 39 (Residents not to apply for patents outside India without prior permission), and on 3 further provisions, so none of them can safely be read on its own. 5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 64 of the Patents Act come into force?
Section 64 of the Patents Act, cited as Patents Act 64, came into force on 01 Apr 1978, having been enacted on 19 Sep 1970. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.