Section 2 of the Patents Act, 1970
Definitions and interpretation
Defines the words used throughout the Act, including invention, inventive step, true and first inventor and person interested.
Official legal text
The verbatim statutory text of this provision is reproduced from the official source and checked by our legal reviewer before it is published here. Until that check is complete for this page, read the exact wording directly from the official source linked below — it is the only version that governs.
Treat this page as a guide. The provision as officially published, along with the Gazette notifications that apply to it, remains the governing text and overrides any simplification here.
What this section says, in plain language
Patent law turns on a small set of loaded words. Section 2 is the dictionary that fixes their meaning for the whole Act, so a term used in an examination report, an opposition or a revocation petition carries the meaning given here and not its everyday meaning. Reading any other section without this one is how most misunderstandings begin.
The most important entry is the definition of an invention. It is not simply a clever idea. To qualify, something must be a new product or a new process, it must involve an inventive step, and it must be capable of industrial application. All three requirements must be met together. Capable of industrial application means the thing can be made or used in an industry, which is why a purely theoretical proposal that nobody can build does not qualify.
The definition of inventive step is unusual and quite demanding. It asks for a feature that involves a technical advance compared with existing knowledge, or has economic significance, or both, and that in addition is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. The phrase person skilled in the art describes an imaginary competent worker in the field who knows the published literature but has no inventive imagination. This composite test is why an examiner can accept that something is new and still refuse it as obvious.
Section 2 also settles who counts as an inventor. A true and first inventor does not include the first importer of an invention into India, nor a person to whom an invention was first communicated from outside India. In other words, bringing in a foreign idea does not make you its inventor in India. Related definitions describe a patentee as the person currently entered on the register as the grantee or proprietor, and an exclusive licensee as a person given rights to the exclusion of everyone else including the patentee.
Two more definitions carry real weight in disputes. A person interested is defined to include a person engaged in, or promoting, research in the same field as the invention, and this status decides who may file a post-grant opposition, seek revocation or apply for a compulsory licence. A new invention is defined by reference to matter not published anywhere in the world or used in the country before the filing of a complete specification, that is, matter which has not fallen into the public domain or become part of the state of the art.
Why this section matters
Every applicant, drafter, examiner, opponent and litigant, because these meanings are used in every other section.
From the first assessment of an idea, through examination, and again in opposition, revocation and licensing disputes.
It fixes the legal meaning of the Act's key terms and, through them, decides who can act and what can be protected.
Claims get drafted around an idea that was never an invention in law, or a party discovers too late that it does not qualify as a person interested.
How it works in practice
The importer who was not an inventor
Harish Nambiar runs a packaging equipment dealership in Kochi. On a trade visit he sees a German sealing machine that is not sold in India and has never been described in any Indian publication. He imports one unit, studies it, and files an Indian patent application in his own name for the machine, arguing that it is entirely new to India. The application runs into Section 2 twice. First, a true and first inventor does not include the first importer of an invention, nor a person to whom the invention was first communicated from abroad, so Harish is not the inventor. Second, novelty is not judged only by what is known in India; publication or use anywhere in the world can destroy it, and the German machine was already publicly sold. Harish redirects his effort. He works with an engineer to develop a genuinely different sealing mechanism of his own and files on that instead.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- An invention must be a new product or process, involve an inventive step, and be capable of industrial application.
- Inventive step requires a technical advance or economic significance plus non-obviousness to a person skilled in the art.
- A true and first inventor excludes the first importer of an invention and a person who was merely told about it from abroad.
- A patentee is whoever is currently entered on the register as grantee or proprietor, which can change after assignment.
- Person interested includes someone engaged in or promoting research in the same field, and this unlocks several remedies.
- Definitions in Section 2 apply unless the context of another section requires otherwise.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Treating novelty and inventive step as the same test. Something can be genuinely new and still be refused as obvious.
- Assuming an idea alone is an invention. Without a product or process that industry can make or use, it does not qualify.
- Thinking anyone can file an opposition or revocation. Several remedies are open only to a person interested as defined here.
- Believing an invention unknown in India is automatically new. Disclosure anywhere in the world counts against it.
Connected provisions
Indian patent law works in two layers. The Act carries the substance and the Rules carry the machinery. Because the layers are amended by different processes and at different times, they are presented in separate blocks instead of being merged into one description.
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.
- 2021The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021The definition of the Appellate Board was dropped when that body was wound up and its work moved to the High Courts. A linked entry in the definition of High Court went with it.
- 2005The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005Several defined terms were added or refined, including a definition of a pharmaceutical substance and a reworked test for an inventive step, along with terms needed for the new opposition and deposit provisions.
- 2002The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002The core definitions were rewritten, including invention, inventive step and capable of industrial application, and definitions were added for international applications and for the appellate body then created.
Compiled from official consolidated texts and Gazette notifications. See the site-wide change log.
Related judgments
Novartis AG v. Union of India & Others
(2013) 6 SCC 1; AIR 2013 SC 1311 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2706-2716 of 2013) · Judgment source ↗
Question before the courtWhether a beta crystalline form of a known molecule could be patented in India despite the bar on new forms of known substances.
HeldThe Court dismissed the appeal. It read section 3(d) as a second and stricter filter that applies after the usual tests of novelty and inventive step have been met. For a new form of a known substance, the applicant must show a real improvement in therapeutic efficacy over the known substance itself. Better flow properties, stability or solubility were held not to be enough on their own in the case of a medicine. On the facts, the claimed form was a new form of a known substance whose efficacy had not been shown to improve.
Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries
(1979) 2 SCC 511; AIR 1982 SC 1444 · Judgment source ↗
Question before the courtWhether an improved method and device for making metal utensils was a patentable invention or only an obvious workshop change.
HeldThe Court held the patent invalid. It said novelty alone is not enough: the claimed advance must not be obvious to a person skilled in the relevant trade at the priority date. The test asks whether such a person, knowing the prior art, would treat the step as plain and easy rather than inventive. A mere putting together of known parts, or an ordinary improvement any competent workman would reach, does not qualify. The Court also warned against reading prior art with hindsight once the invention is already known.
Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 4/2022 (Delhi High Court, judgment dated 31 March 2022)
Question before the courtHow much reasoning a Controller's order must contain when an application is refused for lack of inventive step.
HeldThe Court quashed the order and remitted the matter to the Controller for a fresh decision. It held that an order refusing a patent for obviousness must do three things: say what the cited prior art actually discloses, say what the features of the claimed invention are, and explain why a skilled person would find the step obvious in light of that prior art. Repeating the examination report, or simply asserting obviousness, is not a reasoned order, and the applicant's arguments distinguishing the prior art had to be dealt with.
Case notes are written in our own words from the judgment and are published only after legal review. They are not advice and not a prediction about any other matter. All case notes.
Questions people ask about Section 2
What is the legal definition of invention under the Patents Act?
Under Section 2 an invention means a new product or process that involves an inventive step and is capable of industrial application. All three limbs must be satisfied. New means not already in the public domain anywhere. Inventive step means a technical advance or economic significance combined with non-obviousness to a skilled worker in the field. Capable of industrial application means it can actually be made or used in an industry. Even if all three are met, the subject matter must still not fall within the excluded categories listed in Sections 3 and 4.
Who is a person interested under the Patents Act, 1970?
The definition is inclusive rather than exhaustive. It covers a person engaged in, or in promoting, research in the same field as the invention, and courts have read it to include competitors and others with a real commercial or research stake. The status matters because post-grant opposition under Section 25(2), revocation under Section 64 and applications for a compulsory licence under Section 84 can be pursued only by a person interested. Pre-grant opposition, by contrast, is open to any person.
Does the Act define inventive step differently from other countries?
Yes, and the difference is real. Many systems ask only whether the invention would have been obvious to a skilled person. The Indian definition adds a further requirement that the feature involve a technical advance compared with existing knowledge, or have economic significance, or both. In practice Indian examiners and courts look for a technical contribution as well as non-obviousness, which is why arguments that succeed abroad sometimes need to be recast for India.
Is a discovery an invention under Indian patent law?
No. A discovery reveals something that already exists, while an invention creates something new. The definition in Section 2 requires a new product or process, and Section 3 puts the point beyond doubt by excluding the mere discovery of a scientific principle, the formulation of an abstract theory, and the discovery of any living thing or non-living substance occurring in nature. Applying a newly discovered principle to build a specific working product or process can be a different matter, and is judged on its own facts.
Does your idea meet the legal test for an invention?
MYCrave Consultancy assesses your concept against the statutory definitions before you spend on drafting.
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.