INTRODUCTION

Getting a patent granted in India is only half the battle. A granted patent isn't a permanent, unassailable right  it remains open to legal challenge throughout its life, and Indian law sets out clear, specific grounds on which a patent can be revoked. For inventors, businesses, and IP attorneys alike, understanding how revocation works is just as important as understanding how to secure a patent in the first place. When a patent is challenged successfully, protection can disappear entirely and the process is used far more often than many assume. This guide walks through everything the Patents Act, 1970 says about revocation: who can file, where, on what grounds, and what the courts have said about balancing patent rights against the public interest.

What Does "Revocation" Actually Mean?

A patent grant does not guarantee protection for the full term of its validity. At any point during its life, a granted patent can be challenged by a third party or by the government itself on specific statutory grounds. This can happen through a dedicated revocation petition or as a counterclaim raised during an infringement lawsuit.

Who Can File a Revocation Petition?

Under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, a revocation petition can be filed by:

1. Any person with a valid, present, and quantifiable business interest affected by the patent's continued existence

2. The Central Government

3. A defendant in an infringement action, raising revocation as a counterclaim

The scope of who qualifies as a "person interested" was clarified in Ajay Industrial Corporation v. Shiro Kanao (AIR 1983 Del 496), where the Delhi High Court held that a "person interested" means someone with a direct, present, and tangible commercial interest that is injured or affected by the patent remaining on the register  not a speculative or hypothetical concern.

Where Is a Revocation Petition Filed?

A revocation petition can be filed directly with the High Court by the Central Government or any interested party. Alternatively, if the patent holder has already filed an infringement suit, the defendant can raise revocation as a counterclaim within that proceeding. Because infringement suits cannot originate in courts below the District Court level under Section 104 of the Act, any counterclaim for revocation must be transferred to the High Court for decision.

The Five Grounds for Revocation Under Section 64

The party seeking revocation bears the burden of establishing one or more of the statutory grounds under Section 64. These fall into five broad categories.

A. Failure to Meet Patentability Requirements

A patent can be revoked if it fails basic patentability standards:

• It lacks novelty — the invention wasn't actually new.

• It lacks an inventive step — the invention was obvious to a person skilled in the field.

• It has no industrial application.

• It doesn't meet the statutory definition of "invention" under Section 2(1)(j), or falls within subject matter excluded from patentability altogether.

This last ground comes up frequently in disputes involving software-related claims, pharmaceutical patents, and inventions built on traditional or existing knowledge.

B. Problems With Acquisition or Ownership

A patent may be revoked where:

• The applicant wasn't legally entitled to file the application.

• The invention was wrongfully obtained from someone else.

• The patent was granted based on false or misleading information provided to the Patent Office.

These grounds typically surface in disputes over who the legitimate inventor or rightful patent owner actually is.

C. Failure to Meet Disclosure Requirements

A patent can be invalidated if the applicant failed to meet procedural disclosure obligations, including:

• Failing to disclose corresponding foreign patent applications as required under Section 8.

• Providing inaccurate or incomplete information to the Patent Office.

Courts scrutinize closely whether international applications and relevant prior art were properly disclosed during prosecution.

D. Incomplete or Inadequate Patent Specification

A patent's complete specification can trigger revocation if it:

• Fails to clearly describe the invention.

• Doesn't disclose the best method of performing the invention known to the applicant.

• Doesn't enable a person skilled in the field to actually reproduce the invention.

This ground enforces the fundamental bargain at the heart of the patent system: exclusive rights are granted in exchange for full and genuinely useful public disclosure.

E. Prior Public Use or Reliance on Traditional Knowledge

Revocation can also be justified if the invention was already in public or private use before the priority date, or if it draws on knowledge belonging to indigenous or local communities. Indian patent law places particular emphasis on protecting traditional knowledge and preventing companies from claiming exclusive rights over innovations that rightfully belong to the public domain or specific communities.

Beyond Section 64: Other Grounds for Revocation

Section 64 isn't the only route to revocation. Two other provisions give the government specific, narrower powers.

Section 65 — Revocation of Atomic Energy Inventions

Any patent relating to atomic energy, as defined under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, can be revoked under Section 65 if the Central Government determines the invention involves the production, control, use, or disposal of radioactive material or atomic energy, and revocation is necessary in the interest of public safety.

Section 66 — Revocation in the Public Interest

Patent rights, despite being exclusive, remain subject to broader public interest considerations. Under Section 66, the government can revoke a patent if its existence or the way it is being used threatens national interests or general public welfare though the patentee must first be given notice and an opportunity to respond, in line with principles of natural justice. This provision has historically come into play where patents were seen to enable exploitative pricing, artificial scarcity, or restricted access to essential goods in sectors like healthcare, agriculture, or energy.

Section 85 — Revocation for Non-Working of the Invention

Under Section 85, a patent can be revoked where the invention still isn't being commercially worked in India even after a compulsory license has been in force for at least two years, public demand for the invention remains unmet, and the product isn't available to the public at a reasonable price.

What the Courts Have Said: Two Landmark Cases

Avesthagen v. IPAB and Others (2012)

Avesthagen's patent for a pharmaceutical composition derived from indigenous Indian plants a diabetes formulation using jamun and other traditional ingredients was revoked by the Central Government under Section 66 of the Patents Act. The revocation followed findings that the patent effectively claimed subject matter already disclosed in the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, meaning it improperly restricted public access to well-established traditional remedies. The case remains one of the clearest examples of the government exercising its Section 66 power to protect India's collective traditional knowledge a power that, notably, has been invoked only rarely in the Act's history.

Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013)

In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India rejected Novartis's attempt to patent the beta-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate the cancer drug marketed as Glivec under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. It's worth being precise about what this case actually decided: Novartis's patent application had already been refused by the Indian Patent Office and the erstwhile Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) before it ever reached the Supreme Court, so this was fundamentally a case about the refusal of a patent application rather than the revocation of a granted patent under Section 64. Even so, its interpretation of Section 3(d) that a new form of a known substance is only patentable if it demonstrates a significant improvement in therapeutic efficacy has become foundational to how Indian courts and the Patent Office assess patentability generally, including in later revocation disputes raising Section 3(d) issues. The ruling is widely credited with limiting "evergreening," the practice of seeking incremental patents on minor modifications to extend market exclusivity without a genuine therapeutic advance.

A Note on Procedure After IPAB's Abolition

For several years, patent revocation and appeal matters were routed through the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Following the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, IPAB was abolished, and its functions including hearing revocation petitions and patent appeals were transferred back to the High Courts. Today, as described above, revocation petitions go directly to the relevant High Court, whether filed independently or raised as a counterclaim in an infringement suit.

Conclusion

Patent revocation is a vital safety valve in India's IP system a mechanism that ensures only genuinely valid, properly disclosed, and legitimately obtained patents  remain in force. By allowing challenges on specific, well-defined grounds, the law protects the public interest while preserving the integrity of the patent system as a whole. Whether you're defending a patent or challenging one, understanding exactly how revocation works who can file, where, and on what grounds is essential to navigating India's intellectual property landscape with confidence.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A granted Indian patent can be revoked at any point during its term it is not a permanent, unchallengeable right.

• Under Section 64, revocation petitions can be filed by any "person interested," the Central Government, or a defendant as a counterclaim in an infringement suit.

• The Delhi High Court's ruling in Ajay Industrial Corporation v. Shiro Kanao (1983) defines "person interested" as someone with a direct, present, and tangible commercial interest affected by the patent.

• Section 64 sets out five broad grounds for revocation: failure to meet patentability requirements, ownership/acquisition problems, disclosure failures, inadequate specifications, and reliance on prior public use or traditional knowledge.

• Sections 65, 66, and 85 provide additional, narrower revocation powers covering atomic energy inventions, public interest, and non-working of an invention.

• The Avesthagen case (2012) shows the government's rare use of Section 66 to protect traditional knowledge from improper patenting.

• The Novartis case (2013) was technically a patent application refusal, not a Section 64 revocation but its interpretation of Section 3(d) shapes patentability and revocation disputes to this day.

• Since IPAB's abolition in 2021, all revocation petitions and patent appeals go directly to the High Courts.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Can a granted patent in India be cancelled after it's already been approved? Yes. A granted patent remains subject to legal challenge throughout its term and can be revoked under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, on specific statutory grounds.

2. Who is allowed to file a patent revocation petition in India? Any person with a valid business interest affected by the patent, the Central Government, or a defendant in an infringement suit (via counterclaim) can file for revocation under Section 64.

3. What does "person interested" mean under Section 64? As clarified in Ajay Industrial Corporation v. Shiro Kanao (1983), a "person interested" is someone with a direct, present, and tangible commercial interest that is injured or affected by the patent remaining in force not merely a hypothetical or speculative concern.

4. Where do I file a patent revocation petition in India? Revocation petitions are filed directly with the relevant High Court. If revocation is raised as a counterclaim during an infringement suit, the matter is transferred to the High Court for decision.

5. What are the main grounds for patent revocation under Section 64? The five main grounds are: failure to meet patentability requirements, problems with ownership or acquisition, failure to meet disclosure requirements, an incomplete or inadequate patent specification, and reliance on prior public use or traditional knowledge.

6. Can a patent be revoked for not disclosing a foreign patent application? Yes. Failing to disclose corresponding foreign applications as required under Section 8 of the Patents Act is a valid ground for revocation.

7. What is Section 66 of the Patents Act, and when is it used? Section 66 allows the Central Government to revoke a patent that is mischievous to the state or generally prejudicial to the public interest, after giving the patentee a chance to be heard. It has historically been used in cases involving traditional knowledge and public health concerns.

8. What happened in the Avesthagen case? The Central Government revoked Avesthagen's patent for a diabetes formulation derived from traditional Indian plant knowledge under Section 66, after finding it improperly restricted public access to well-established traditional remedies.

9. Was the Novartis Glivec case a patent revocation case? Not technically. The Novartis case involved the Supreme Court upholding the refusal of a patent application under Section 3(d), rather than the revocation of an already-granted patent under Section 64. Its interpretation of Section 3(d), however, remains highly influential in later revocation and patentability disputes.

10. Can a patent be revoked if the invention isn't being used in India? Yes. Under Section 85, a patent can be revoked if the invention isn't being commercially worked in India even after a compulsory license has been in effect for at least two years, and public demand still isn't being met at a reasonable price.

11. Does the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) still handle patent revocation cases? No. IPAB was abolished under the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. All patent revocation petitions and appeals are now handled directly by the High Courts.

12. Can revocation be sought on the basis of traditional knowledge? Yes. Indian patent law places significant emphasis on protecting traditional and indigenous knowledge, and a patent can be revoked if it improperly claims subject matter that was already known or used based on such knowledge before the priority date.

© 2025. All rights reserved.