Section 29 of the Patents Act, 1970
Anticipation by previous publication
Section 29 protects an applicant when someone else publishes the invention without permission, so a leaked disclosure need not destroy novelty.
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.
Nothing here replaces the statute. The official wording of the provision, together with any Gazette notification that applies to it, governs. This page only explains that material in ordinary language.
What this section says, in plain language
An invention can only be patented if it is new on its priority date. Priority date means the date the law treats your claim as having been made. If the invention was already published anywhere in the world before that date, it is said to be anticipated, and it cannot be patented. Section 29 creates a narrow escape from that harsh rule for publications the inventor never authorised.
The main shield works like this. If the published matter was obtained from the applicant, or from a person from whom the applicant derives title, and it was published without consent, the applicant can ask that the publication be left out of account. There is a second condition attached to it. The applicant must have filed the patent application as soon as reasonably practicable after learning about the publication. Someone who discovers a leak and then waits a year loses the protection.
The shield has a limit. It does not help if the invention had already been worked commercially in India before the priority date by the applicant, or by anyone acting with the applicant's consent. Working done only as a reasonable trial is treated differently and is dealt with by section 32. Section 29 also carries an old rule about specifications filed in India before 1912, which has no practical use today.
Section 29 is raised at several stages. An examiner may cite the leaked document in a first examination report. An opponent may cite it under section 25. It may appear in a revocation petition under section 64 or as a plea of invalidity in an infringement suit. In every one of those places the burden sits on the applicant or patentee to prove the origin of the document, the absence of consent, and prompt filing. That is a question of evidence, so dated records, signed confidentiality agreements, courier receipts and email trails do the real work.
Why this section matters
Inventors, startups and research groups whose designs, drawings or data reach the public through a supplier, employee, collaborator or former partner without permission.
It becomes relevant the moment an unauthorised disclosure is discovered, and again whenever that disclosure is cited against the application or the granted patent.
It creates a defence: the right to have a specific unauthorised publication excluded from the prior art, provided the applicant proves origin, lack of consent and prompt filing.
The leaked document stands as ordinary prior art, the claims can be refused for lack of novelty, and a granted patent can be revoked on the same material.
How it works in practice
A vendor puts a confidential design online
Kestrel Robotics Pvt Ltd of Pune designs a soft gripper for warehouse sorting. In January it sends detailed drawings to a machining vendor in Rajkot under a signed confidentiality agreement. In March the vendor puts photographs and a technical description of the gripper on its own website to attract customers. Kestrel finds out in the second week of April. It files a complete specification in India within three weeks, along with a record of the discovery date. During examination the examiner cites the vendor's web page as prior art. Kestrel responds under section 29 with the signed agreement, the dated drawing files sent to the vendor, the vendor's own page showing the same drawings, and proof of when Kestrel learned of the posting. It also shows that the gripper had never been sold or used commercially in India. On that material the vendor's page is not treated as anticipation, and examination continues on the remaining citations.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- The protection covers only publications that came from you and were made without your consent.
- You must file as soon as reasonably practicable after you learn of the unauthorised publication.
- Prior commercial working in India by you, or with your consent, cancels the protection.
- The burden of proof is on the applicant or patentee, so contemporaneous evidence decides the point.
- The shield removes one document from the prior art; it does not make the invention patentable on its own.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Assuming any early disclosure is forgiven. Section 29 covers unauthorised publication of your own matter, not a talk you gave or a paper you chose to publish.
- Waiting to see whether anyone notices the leak. Delay between discovering the publication and filing is the most common reason the protection fails.
- Believing the protection is worldwide. It answers the citation in an Indian proceeding; a foreign patent office applies its own law to the same leak.
Connected provisions
Sections and rules are different kinds of law. A section is enacted by Parliament, while a rule is made by the Central Government using powers the Act grants. Keeping them apart shows which text you are reading and which of the two is more likely to have been revised recently.
Forms, deadlines and fees
- File as soon as reasonably practicable after you learn of the unauthorised publication. The Act fixes no number of days, and delay can destroy the protection.
- The protection is lost if the invention was commercially worked in India before the priority date by you or with your consent.
Open the deadline calculator — and have every date confirmed against the current Rules before you rely on it.
Fees are prescribed in the First Schedule to the Patents Rules. Because the Schedule is revised from time to time, and charges different amounts to different categories of applicant and for physical as against electronic filing, this page describes the fee without stating a figure. How Indian patent fees work.
Related judgments
Court decisions shape how this provision is applied, but a summary is useful only if it is right. Every case note on this site is read by a legal reviewer before it goes live, and none has been completed for this provision so far. This section will fill in as those reviews finish. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 29
Does section 29 give a general grace period after any public disclosure?
No. It is not a grace period in the usual sense. It applies only where the published matter was obtained from you or from someone through whom you claim title, and was published without your consent. A voluntary disclosure by you, such as a conference talk, a product launch or a journal article, is not covered. Separate and much narrower reliefs exist for notified exhibitions and learned society papers under section 31, and for public trial working under section 32.
What evidence is normally needed to rely on section 29?
You need to show three things with dates. First, that the published material came from you or from a predecessor in title, which is usually proved by matching drawings, text or data. Second, that it was published without your consent, which non-disclosure agreements, purchase orders and correspondence help establish. Third, when you came to know of the publication, and that filing followed promptly. Screenshots with timestamps, web archive records, courier proofs and internal emails are all useful. Keep them from day one, because reconstructing dates later is difficult.
An ex-employee published our invention. Can we still file?
Section 29 is designed for exactly this kind of situation, provided the material published was obtained from the company and was published without the company's consent. The practical difficulty is time. You must be able to show that the application was filed as soon as reasonably practicable after the company learned about the publication. Record the date of discovery in writing, gather the employment and confidentiality documents, and file quickly. Any separate employment or civil action against the individual is a different matter from the patent point.
Does section 29 also protect me during opposition or revocation?
Yes. Section 34 makes the protections in sections 29 to 32 effective at every stage, not only during examination. So the same defence can be run against a pre-grant representation, a post-grant opposition, a revocation petition and a counterclaim in an infringement suit. What does not change is the burden. In each forum the applicant or patentee has to prove origin, absence of consent and prompt filing on evidence.
Has someone published your invention without permission?
MYCrave Consultancy helps you assemble the evidence of origin and consent and file quickly so a leaked disclosure does not become fatal prior art.
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.