Section 112 of the Patents Act, 1970
Restriction on power of court to grant injunction in certain cases
An omitted provision that once stopped courts from injuncting a defendant willing to take a licence under the abolished licences of right scheme.
Official legal text
An omitted provision keeps its slot in the statute. The alternative, renumbering everything that follows, would make older judgments and office records hard to follow. The number therefore survives as a marker, and readers tracing historical documents still need an explanation of what once stood here.
This explanation is written for clarity, not for citation. The official statutory text and any Gazette notification in force on your date govern, and they prevail over anything said here.
What this section says, in plain language
Section 112 belonged to an earlier design of Indian patent law. In the original scheme of the 1970 Act, certain patents could be endorsed with the words 'licences of right', and patents relating to food, medicine, drugs and certain chemical processes were treated as carrying that endorsement automatically. Anyone was then entitled to a licence on terms settled by the Controller. Section 112 supported that system on the litigation side. Where such a patent was sued upon, the court's power to grant an injunction was restricted if the defendant undertook to take a licence on the terms the Controller would settle, and the money the patentee could recover was limited accordingly. The policy was that where the law had already decided the invention should be open to all comers on reasonable terms, a court should not shut a willing licensee out of the market.
The licences of right scheme was dismantled by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 as India moved towards full compliance with the TRIPS Agreement, and Section 112 went with it. The related provisions in Sections 95 to 98 now appear in the Act as omitted. Today there is no automatic entitlement to a licence on any Indian patent. A person who wants to work a patented invention without the patentee's consent must apply for a compulsory licence under Section 84, or fall within Section 92 where the Central Government has issued a notification, or Section 92A for export of pharmaceutical products to a country with insufficient manufacturing capacity. In an infringement suit, the reliefs a court may grant are governed by Section 108, and the restrictions on money relief by Sections 111 and 114. Willingness to take a licence is no longer a statutory answer to an injunction, though a court may still weigh a defendant's conduct and offers when it decides where the balance of convenience lies.
Why this section matters
Researchers and practitioners reading older judgments and commentaries, and anyone tracing how Indian patent policy changed between 1970 and 2005.
Only when interpreting historical material; the provision has no present application.
Nothing today. It has been omitted from the Act.
Relying on it in a current dispute would be an error, because an offer to take a licence is no longer a statutory bar to an injunction.
How it works in practice
Why an old case may not apply today
A law student in Pune reads a 1980s judgment in which a court declined to injunct a manufacturer of a medicinal preparation because the manufacturer had undertaken to take a licence on terms to be settled by the Controller. Assuming the same rule still applies, the student advises a small formulation company that it can safely launch a copy of a patented product so long as it offers to pay a licence fee. That advice would be wrong. The endorsement scheme that produced the older decisions no longer exists, and Section 112 was omitted when that scheme was abolished. Today the company's options are to design around the claims, to challenge the patent through opposition under Section 25 or revocation under Section 64, to negotiate a voluntary licence, or to apply to the Controller for a compulsory licence under Section 84 once the statutory conditions are met. An offer to pay does not by itself protect it from an injunction under Section 108.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Section 112 has been omitted and no longer forms part of the Patents Act, 1970.
- It operated only within the licences of right scheme, which the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 removed.
- Reliefs in infringement suits are now governed by Section 108, with restrictions in Sections 111 and 114, and licences must be sought under Sections 84, 92 or 92A.
Connected provisions
You will find the related rules grouped below rather than inside the explanation. The separation is deliberate. The Act and the Rules are distinct legal instruments, and mixing them can lead a reader to attribute a procedural requirement to the statute itself.
Forms, deadlines and fees
The official fee for anything described on this page is set out in the First Schedule to the Patents Rules. It is not the same for every applicant, and it is not the same for online and physical filing, which is why no amount is stated here. How Indian patent fees work.
Amendment history
What changed in this provision, newest first. Read the footnotes in the official consolidated text for the full record.
- 2002The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002The section was omitted when licences of right were abolished. The special restriction on a court granting an injunction against a defendant willing to take such a licence went with the scheme it supported.
Compiled from official consolidated texts and Gazette notifications. See the site-wide change log.
Related judgments
Case summaries are published only after a qualified reviewer has checked the judgment, the citation and the way the holding is described. Nothing has cleared that review for this provision yet, so nothing is listed here. We would rather show no case note than one that misstates what a court decided. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 112
Is Section 112 of the Patents Act still in force?
No. It has been omitted. It formed part of the licences of right scheme, under which certain patents, including those relating to food, medicine and drugs, were treated as open to licensing on terms settled by the Controller. That scheme was removed by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 as India aligned its law with the TRIPS Agreement, and Section 112 was omitted along with it. You will still see it discussed in older judgments and textbooks, so check the date of any source you rely on.
Can I avoid an injunction today by offering to take a licence?
Not as a matter of right. There is no longer any statutory provision that bars an injunction because a defendant is willing to be licensed. Reliefs in an infringement suit are governed by Section 108, and the court decides on ordinary principles including prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm. A genuine offer may still influence how a court exercises its discretion at the interim stage, but the proper routes to work a patent without consent are a voluntary licence or a compulsory licence under Section 84.
Need the current position on patent injunctions in India?
MYCrave explains which provisions of the Patents Act still apply and which have been omitted, so your strategy rests on current law.
You will be speaking with MYCrave Consultancy & Services, the firm that operates this platform. General questions are answered free; matter‑specific work is quoted before anything is done.