Form 27 — Statement Regarding the Working of a Patented Invention in India
Form 27 tells the Patent Office whether and how a granted patent has been worked commercially in India.
What Form 27 is for
Indian law treats a patent as carrying a public obligation as well as a private right. Section 83 says patents are granted to encourage inventions and to ensure they are worked in India on a commercial scale. Section 146 gives the Controller power to call for information from patentees about the extent to which the patented invention has been worked commercially in India, and it requires the patentee and every licensee to furnish periodical statements. Form 27 is that statement, and Rule 131 sets out its form, manner and interval.
The statement is not a formality with no audience. Information about working feeds directly into the compulsory licensing and non-working provisions. An applicant for a compulsory licence will look at what the patentee has said in its own working statements, and so will the Controller. A statement that says a patent has not been worked is a statement the patentee may have to live with in a later proceeding.
The requirement has changed. The 2024 amendment to Rule 131 lengthened the interval at which statements must be filed and revised the manner of filing, and the form itself was revised in an earlier amendment to reduce the level of detail sought. Because of those changes, the current text of Rule 131 and the current version of Form 27 must be checked from the Indian Patent Office before filing rather than working from an older cycle or an older form.
Who files it, and when
Every patentee must file it, and every licensee under a patent must file in respect of their own working. Where a patent has more than one proprietor, they may file jointly or separately as the current Rule allows. Foreign patentees with Indian patents are in exactly the same position as Indian ones: the obligation attaches to the patent, not to the residence of its owner, which is a point overseas portfolio managers frequently miss.
Statements are filed at the interval Rule 131 prescribes, in respect of the periods it specifies, and within the time it allows after the end of each period. That interval was lengthened by the 2024 amendment, so a portfolio diary built on the earlier cycle will be wrong. Separately, the Controller may at any time call for information under Section 146 about the extent of commercial working, and the patentee must furnish it within the period specified in that requisition. The safe approach is to read the current Rule and set the diary from it.
How it is filed
- Confirm the current filing interval and the periods covered by reading Rule 131 as it now stands.
- Identify every granted Indian patent in the portfolio and every licensee who must file separately.
- Collect the information for each patent about whether the invention was worked in India during the period.
- Where it was worked, assemble the supporting commercial information the current form calls for.
- Where it was not worked, prepare the explanation of the reasons and the steps being taken.
- Complete the current version of Form 27 for each patent and file it through the e-filing portal within the time allowed.
- Keep the underlying records, because the statement may be relied on years later in a compulsory licence or non-working proceeding.
What the form asks for
- The patent number and the name of the patentee or licensee filing the statement.
- The period to which the statement relates.
- Whether the invention has been worked in India during that period.
- Where worked, commercial information about the working to the extent the current form seeks it.
- Where not worked, the reasons and a statement of the steps being taken towards working it.
- Details of licences and sub-licences granted during the period, to the extent the current form requires.
Described in general terms. Form contents are prescribed in the Second Schedule and change — download the current version from the Patent Office rather than working from any summary, including this one.
Common mistakes with Form 27
- Working from the old annual cycle after the 2024 amendment changed the interval, so statements are filed for the wrong periods.
- Filing one statement for a group of related patents when a statement is required in respect of each patent.
- Forgetting licensees. The obligation extends to licensees in respect of their own working, not only to the patentee.
- Stating that a patent is not worked without thought, when that statement can be used against the patentee in a later compulsory licence proceeding.
- Furnishing information that is false to the knowledge of the person giving it, which the Act treats as an offence.
What happens if it goes wrong
Section 122 deals with refusal or failure to supply information, and it provides for punishment where a person refuses or fails to furnish information the Act requires, and separately where a person furnishes information that is false to their knowledge. Beyond the penal exposure, the commercial consequence is more immediate. An empty or missing working record leaves a patentee poorly placed to resist a compulsory licence application, since the applicant will argue from the absence of any evidence that the invention is being worked in India.
A portfolio review at a Gurugram licensing company
This is a simplified illustration. Aravali IP Holdings Pvt Ltd of Gurugram holds fourteen granted Indian patents, most of which it licenses to manufacturers rather than working itself. Its paralegal has maintained a diary built on the older filing cycle. During a portfolio review, its agent points out that Rule 131 was amended in 2024 and that both the interval and the manner of filing changed, so the diary no longer matches the Rule. They rebuild the schedule from the current text, list every patent separately, and identify three licensees who must file in respect of their own working. For two patents that have not been worked at all, the company records the reasons and the steps it is taking to find a manufacturing partner, rather than leaving the entry blank, because it knows those statements would be the first documents an applicant for a compulsory licence would read.
Simplified illustration only. Actual outcomes depend on the facts.
Questions about Form 27
How often must a working statement be filed?
The interval is set by Rule 131, and it was lengthened by the 2024 amendment, so statements are no longer filed on the cycle that applied before. Because the interval, the periods covered and the time allowed after each period are all set by the Rule, and because the Rule has changed, the current text should be read and the portfolio diary built from it. Separately, the Controller may call for information under Section 146 at any time, and that requisition carries its own period.
Do licensees have to file working statements too?
Yes. Section 146 requires the patentee and every licensee to furnish statements about the extent to which the patented invention has been worked commercially in India. A licensee files in respect of its own working, so a patent worked through three licensees can generate statements from each of them as well as from the patentee. Licence agreements often deal with this expressly, allocating responsibility and requiring the licensee to supply the information the patentee needs for its own statement.
What if the patent has not been worked at all?
The statement records that, together with the reasons and the steps being taken towards working the invention, to the extent the current form asks. Filing an honest statement of non-working is the correct course; the alternative of not filing, or of filing something false, carries its own consequences under the Act. What patentees should understand is that the statement becomes part of the public record and can be relied on by an applicant for a compulsory licence, so the reasons and the steps described should be accurate and considered.
What is the penalty for not filing Form 27?
Section 122 addresses refusal or failure to furnish information that the Act requires, and it also addresses the furnishing of information that is false to the knowledge of the person giving it. The Act sets the consequences, and the penalty provisions have themselves been affected by later amending legislation, so the current text should be read. In practice the more pressing risk for many patentees is not the penalty but the evidential vacuum a missing working record creates if the patent is later challenged for non-working.
Are your Indian working statements up to date?
MYCrave Consultancy & Services helps patentees and licensees align Form 27 diaries with the amended Rule 131.