Section 82 of the Patents Act, 1970
Definition of “patented articles” and “patentee”
Defines patented article and patentee for the chapter on working of patents, compulsory licences and revocation for non-working.
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.
This is a simplified explanation. Where it differs from the official text of the provision, or from an applicable Gazette notification, the official text and the notification prevail.
What this section says, in plain language
Definitions look dull until they decide a case. Section 82 is the definition provision for the chapter that deals with working of patented inventions, compulsory licences and revocation for non-working. It does two things. It says that a patented article includes any article made by a patented process. And it says that a patentee includes an exclusive licensee.
The first limb closes an obvious gap. Many Indian patents claim a process rather than a product, particularly in chemistry and pharmaceuticals. Without this definition, a patentee could argue that the working and compulsory licence provisions do not touch it because it makes no patented article at all, only a process. By treating the output of the process as a patented article, the chapter reaches process patents in the same way as product patents when the question is whether the public is being reasonably supplied.
The second limb reflects commercial reality. Where a patentee has granted an exclusive licence, it is usually the licensee, not the patentee, who actually manufactures, imports and sets prices in India. Treating the exclusive licensee as the patentee for this chapter means the licensee's conduct is what gets examined, and the licensee can also be heard and made subject to orders. An exclusive licensee cannot hide behind the fact that its name is not on the grant.
The practical consequences run through several sections. Section 83 states the general principles about working inventions in India, making them available at reasonably affordable prices and not merely importing. Section 84 lets any interested person apply for a compulsory licence after three years from grant on the stated grounds. Section 85 allows revocation for non-working after a compulsory licence has been in force. Section 146 requires patentees and licensees to state how the invention has been worked, using Form 27. In each of those contexts, section 82 tells you who counts and what counts.
Why this section matters
Patentees, exclusive licensees, process patent holders and anyone considering a compulsory licence application.
Whenever working, availability, pricing or compulsory licensing is in issue, including at the annual working statement stage.
An extended meaning of patented article and patentee that decides who is answerable and what conduct is examined in this chapter.
An exclusive licensee assumes the working obligations are someone else's problem, and a process patentee assumes the compulsory licence provisions cannot apply to it. Both are wrong.
How it works in practice
An exclusive licensee that thought the rules did not apply
A foreign company holds an Indian patent on a process for making a speciality agrochemical intermediate. It grants an exclusive licence for India to Arunodaya Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Ankleshwar, which imports small quantities of the intermediate at a high price and does not manufacture locally. Formulators in Gujarat and Punjab cannot obtain it in the volumes they need. One of them applies for a compulsory licence, arguing that the reasonable requirements of the public are not satisfied. Arunodaya's first answer is that it is not the patentee and that the patent claims a process, not an article, so the chapter does not apply to it. Both arguments fail because of section 82: the imported intermediate is an article made by the patented process, and the exclusive licensee stands in the patentee's shoes for this chapter. The Controller examines Arunodaya's supply, pricing and manufacturing record, and it is Arunodaya that has to justify them.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- The definitions apply only to the chapter on working, compulsory licences and revocation for non-working.
- An article made by a patented process counts as a patented article.
- This brings process patents squarely within the working and compulsory licence provisions.
- An exclusive licensee is treated as the patentee for this chapter.
- The exclusive licensee's own conduct on supply and pricing is therefore what gets examined.
- The definitions feed into sections 83 to 85 and into the working statement requirement under section 146.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Assuming a process patent escapes compulsory licensing because nothing is claimed as a product. The article made by the process is caught.
- Thinking only the person named on the grant has working obligations. An exclusive licensee is treated as the patentee here.
- Applying these definitions across the whole Act. They are chapter-specific, and the general definitions in section 2 govern elsewhere.
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
Where a form is required, the Second Schedule to the Patents Rules prescribes it. Superseded versions circulate widely online, so download the current form from the Patent Office and check it against the rule before use.
- A compulsory licence application under section 84 can be made after three years from the date of grant of the patent.
- Working statements must be filed for the period and within the timeline the Rules prescribe, so check the current Rule 131 requirements each year.
Open the deadline calculator — and have every date confirmed against the current Rules before you rely on it.
Any official fee connected with this provision is fixed by the First Schedule to the Patents Rules, not by the provision itself. The amount depends on who the applicant is and on whether the filing is made online or on paper, so no figures are reproduced here. 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 82
Does an exclusive licensee have to file a working statement?
The obligation to give information about working extends to licensees as well as patentees under section 146, and Form 27 is the prescribed statement. Because section 82 treats an exclusive licensee as the patentee for this chapter, an exclusive licensee should assume it is answerable for working information relating to its territory and product. In practice the licence agreement should say who files what, so that the obligation is not left to be argued about after a notice arrives.
Is a non-exclusive licensee covered by this definition?
The extended meaning of patentee in this chapter refers to an exclusive licensee. A non-exclusive licensee is not converted into the patentee by this section. It may still have obligations under other provisions, particularly the requirement to supply information about working, and its supply and pricing can be relevant evidence when the Controller examines whether the public is reasonably served. But it does not step into the patentee's shoes in the way an exclusive licensee does.
Why does importing matter if the patented article is made abroad?
Because the article made by the patented process is treated as a patented article wherever the process is carried out. So a licensee importing product made abroad by the patented process cannot say that nothing patented exists in India. Whether importation alone amounts to adequate working is a separate question, and section 83 states the principle that patents are not granted merely to enable monopoly of importation. That tension is exactly what compulsory licence proceedings examine.
Do these definitions affect infringement suits?
Not directly, because they are stated to operate in this chapter. Infringement is governed by the rights in section 48 and by the provisions in the chapters on suits, and section 48 has its own language about products obtained directly by a patented process. The exclusive licensee's right to sue comes from section 109, not from section 82. Keep the two contexts apart when reading older commentary that quotes definitions without saying where they come from.
Are you meeting your patent working obligations?
MYCrave Consultancy advises patentees and exclusive licensees on working statements, supply strategy and compulsory licence risk in India.
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.