Section 83 of the Patents Act, 1970
General principles applicable to working of patented inventions
Sets out the guiding principles that shape how patents must be worked in India and how compulsory licence powers are used.
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This explanation is written for clarity, not for citation.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 83 does not by itself give anyone a right or take one away. It is a statement of policy placed at the head of Chapter XVI, the chapter that deals with working of patents, compulsory licences and revocation for non-working. "Working" a patent means actually putting the invention to use in India on a commercial scale, usually by manufacturing it here or otherwise supplying it to Indian users in real quantities. When the Controller decides whether to grant a compulsory licence, this section supplies the yardstick.
The principles it lists run in one direction. A patent is granted to encourage inventions and to secure that the invention is worked in India to the fullest extent that is reasonably practicable, without undue delay. It is not granted merely so that the owner can import the product and keep everyone else out. Patent protection is expected to help promote innovation and the transfer and spread of technology, to the mutual advantage of those who make things and those who use them.
Three of the principles are aimed squarely at abuse and at public welfare. Patents must not get in the way of protecting public health and nutrition, and should work as an instrument to promote public interest in sectors that matter for India's social, economic and technological development. The Central Government must remain free to take measures to protect public health. And the patentee must not abuse the patent or use it to unreasonably restrain trade or to hurt the international transfer of technology.
The last principle is the one most often quoted in disputes: patents are granted so that the benefit of the invention is available to the public at reasonably affordable prices. Read with Sections 84, 89 and 90, this is why price and local supply are live issues in a compulsory licence hearing, and it is part of the reason the Act asks patentees to report on working under Section 146.
In a real dispute both sides use Section 83. An applicant argues that supply is thin, prices are high and nothing is being made in India. The patentee argues that it has invested heavily, that its rollout has been as fast as is commercially sensible, and that regulatory approvals or plant construction explain any delay. Neither side wins on this section alone, but it frames how every other section in the chapter is read.
Why this section matters
Patentees, compulsory licence applicants, generic and equipment manufacturers, public-health bodies, and anyone arguing about whether an invention is genuinely available in India.
After a patent is granted, whenever someone questions how, at what price, or whether the invention is being supplied in India.
No standalone right or obligation. It creates the policy tests that the Controller and the courts apply when using every other power in Chapter XVI.
A patentee who treats the Indian patent purely as an import monopoly risks a compulsory licence against it, and in a bad case revocation for non-working.
How it works in practice
A ventilator valve patent that is only imported
Kestrel Medical Systems Pvt Ltd holds an Indian patent on a low-cost ventilator valve. For four years after grant it makes nothing in India. It imports a few thousand units a year at a price most district hospitals cannot meet, and it turns down every licence request. Vaayu Devices, an MSME in Coimbatore with a moulding line and a quality certification, asks for a licence on ordinary commercial terms and is refused without any counter-offer. Vaayu then applies for a compulsory licence. At the hearing the Controller does not look at Section 84 in isolation. He reads it with Section 83: was the invention worked in India to the fullest extent reasonably practicable, is the benefit reaching the public at a reasonably affordable price, and is the patent being used mainly as an import monopoly? Kestrel replies that a plant is under construction and that its prices reflect research cost. Those answers matter, but they are tested against the Section 83 principles, not against Kestrel's commercial preference.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Section 83 is a policy provision, not an operative one; it guides how Sections 84 to 94 are applied.
- A patent is meant to be worked in India, not held purely to support imports.
- Reasonably affordable pricing for the public is written into the Act as a stated purpose of the patent system.
- The Central Government's freedom to protect public health is expressly preserved.
- Abuse of the patent, restraint of trade and blocking technology transfer are all flagged as things the system must prevent.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Thinking Section 83 by itself allows anyone to use a patented invention. It does not; you still need a licence, a compulsory licence order, or a government use authorisation.
- Assuming that importing the patented product into India always counts as working it. Import may or may not be enough, and the Controller weighs it against the principle of local commercial working.
- Believing the section applies only to medicines. It applies to every field of technology, from farm machinery to telecom.
Connected provisions
A section of the Act states what the law requires. The detail of complying with it, including forms, periods and office procedure, sits in the Patents Rules, 2003. The Rules are a separate instrument and change far more often, so they are shown alongside rather than folded into the section.
Forms, deadlines and fees
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
Bayer Corporation v. Union of India, Controller of Patents and Natco Pharma Ltd.
Writ Petition No. 1323 of 2013 (Bombay High Court, judgment dated 15 July 2014) · Judgment source ↗
Question before the courtWhether India's first compulsory licence, granted over a patented cancer medicine, was validly granted under section 84.
HeldThe Court upheld the compulsory licence. It found all three grounds in section 84(1) made out. Supply had reached only a small fraction of the patients who needed the medicine, so the reasonable requirements of the public were not being met. A discretionary patient assistance scheme did not answer the separate question of a reasonably affordable price, which is judged largely from the public's side. On working in India, the Court accepted that importation can amount to working, but said the patentee must justify why local manufacture was not attempted.
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 83
Does Section 83 mean a patented product must be manufactured in India?
Not automatically. The section says patents are granted to secure that inventions are worked in India on a commercial scale to the fullest extent that is reasonably practicable, without undue delay. Whether importing is enough is judged case by case. A patentee who imports in adequate quantity at a reasonable price, and can explain why local manufacture is not practicable, is in a much stronger position than one who supplies almost nothing and refuses every licence request.
Can I rely on Section 83 to defend an infringement suit?
Section 83 is not a defence to infringement. Defences in an infringement suit are dealt with elsewhere in the Act, mainly Section 107 read with the grounds of revocation. Section 83 matters when you are asking the Controller for a compulsory licence, opposing one, or arguing about revocation for non-working. It shapes how those powers are used; it does not give you permission to work someone else's patented invention in the meantime.
Who decides whether the Section 83 principles have been met?
The Controller of Patents decides in the first instance, when hearing an application under Section 84, 85, 91, 92 or 92A. The decision can be appealed to the High Court under Section 117A. Because the principles are broad, the outcome depends heavily on evidence: sales and supply figures in India, pricing, licensing correspondence, manufacturing plans, and the working information filed under Section 146.
Is your Indian patent actually being worked?
MYCrave reviews your Indian supply, pricing and licensing record so you can answer a working challenge with evidence rather than assertions.
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.