Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970
Compulsory licences
Lets any interested person ask the Controller for a compulsory licence three years after grant if the patent is not serving the Indian public.
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.
The authority is the enacted text, not this page. Where our wording and the official provision, or an applicable Gazette notification, do not match, the official material prevails.
What this section says, in plain language
A compulsory licence is a licence the Controller orders the patentee to give, even though the patentee does not want to give it. Section 84 is the main route to one. Any person interested may apply, and you do not have to be a stranger to the patent; even someone who already holds a licence under it can apply. The application is made on Form 17 under Rule 96, with the fee prescribed in the First Schedule.
Timing matters. An application under this section can only be made after three years have passed from the date the patent was granted. Before that, the patentee is left alone to build its business. After that window, the patent becomes answerable to three questions, and any one of them is enough to support a licence: have the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the invention not been satisfied; is the invention not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price; and is the invention not worked in the territory of India.
There is a step you must take before you apply. The applicant must have tried to get a voluntary licence from the patentee on reasonable terms and failed. The Act treats a reasonable period for those negotiations as normally not longer than six months. That requirement is relaxed where the case involves a national emergency, extreme urgency, public non-commercial use, or where the patentee has been found to be acting in an anti-competitive way.
The section also tells the Controller what to weigh: the nature of the invention, the time that has passed since grant, the steps the patentee or its licensees have actually taken to make full use of the invention, the applicant's ability to work the invention to the public advantage, the applicant's capacity to take the financial risk, and whether the applicant genuinely tried to obtain a licence.
Finally, the section spells out when the reasonable requirements of the public are treated as not satisfied. Examples include a refusal to license on reasonable terms that damages an existing trade or industry in India, demand for the patented article not being met to an adequate extent, an Indian market being supplied largely by imports, unfair licence conditions such as forced package licensing or grant-back terms, and working in India being hindered because the patentee prefers to import.
Why this section matters
Indian manufacturers, generic pharmaceutical companies, MSMEs and public-health applicants who want to work a patented invention, and patentees who must defend how they have supplied the Indian market.
From three years after grant, and typically after a licence request to the patentee has been refused or ignored.
A right for any interested person to apply, and a power in the Controller to force a licence on terms he settles.
A patentee who ignores licence requests and thin Indian supply can lose exclusivity through a compulsory licence, and later face revocation under Section 85.
How it works in practice
A refused licence for a cancer medicine
Aarogya Formulations Pvt Ltd, a mid-sized Hyderabad company, wants to make a patented oral cancer drug. The Indian patent was granted five years ago to a foreign originator. Aarogya writes twice offering a royalty-bearing licence and a supply commitment for government hospitals. The originator does not respond to the first letter and rejects the second without terms. Seven months after the first approach, Aarogya files Form 17 with the Controller under Section 84. Its evidence shows how many patients need the drug each year, how many packs the patentee actually sold in India, the monthly price against average household income, and that the product is imported rather than made here. The patentee replies that it runs a donation programme and that its price reflects research cost. The Controller must decide whether the public's reasonable requirements are met, whether the price is reasonably affordable, and whether the invention is worked in India. Aarogya also has to prove it can manufacture to quality standards and carry the commercial risk.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Only available after three years from the date of grant.
- Any of three grounds is enough: unmet public requirements, price that is not reasonably affordable, or no working in India.
- You must first try, and fail, to get a voluntary licence on reasonable terms; six months is the usual yardstick for that attempt.
- The prior-negotiation step is relaxed for national emergency, extreme urgency, public non-commercial use and anti-competitive conduct.
- The applicant's own ability and financial capacity to work the invention is part of what the Controller examines.
- The application is made on Form 17 under Rule 96 with the prescribed fee.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Assuming a compulsory licence is quick or cheap. It is a contested proceeding with publication, opposition, evidence and a hearing, and it can be appealed.
- Applying without any record of a licence request. Correspondence with the patentee is usually the first thing the Controller looks for.
- Thinking a compulsory licence makes the invention free. The Controller fixes a royalty and other terms; the licensee still pays.
- Believing the licence can be sold on. A compulsory licence is non-exclusive and cannot be assigned freely.
Connected provisions
- ActSection 83General principles applicable to working of patented inventions
- ActSection 87Procedure for dealing with applications under sections 84 and 85
- ActSection 88Powers of Controller in granting compulsory licences
- ActSection 89General purposes for granting compulsory licences
- ActSection 90Terms and conditions of compulsory licences
The Patents Act sets the requirement; the Patents Rules, 2003 set the procedure that carries it out. Parliament passes the Act and the Central Government makes the Rules, so the two are separate instruments. We list the connected rules here to take you from the principle to the paperwork.
Forms, deadlines and fees
Forms are not set out in the Act. They are prescribed in the Second Schedule to the Patents Rules and are revised from time to time, so obtain the current version from the official website before filing.
- An application can be made only after three years from the date the patent was granted.
- You must first seek a licence from the patentee; the Act treats a reasonable negotiation period as ordinarily not exceeding six months.
Open the deadline calculator — and have every date confirmed against the current Rules before you rely on it.
Where a fee is payable under this provision, the figure comes from the First Schedule. Categories of applicant are charged at different rates, and electronic filing is treated differently from paper filing, so an accurate number can only come from the Schedule in force on the day you file. 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.
- 2005The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005The wording moved from sealing to grant of the patent, and an explanation was added on what counts as a reasonable period for the applicant's earlier efforts to obtain a voluntary licence.
- 2002The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002The whole chapter on working and compulsory licences was replaced and the section took its present shape. After 3 years from grant, any interested person may apply on the grounds that the reasonable requirements of the public are not met, that the invention is not available at a reasonably affordable price, or that it is not worked in India.
Compiled from official consolidated texts and Gazette notifications. See the site-wide change log.
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 84
Who counts as a person interested for a compulsory licence?
The Act uses a wide definition. It covers anyone engaged in, or promoting, research in the same field, and anyone carrying on a business in the relevant line of manufacture or trade. In practice a manufacturer with the plant and approvals to make the product, a research institution, or an industry body in that field will usually qualify. You should be ready to prove the interest with documents: your manufacturing licence, product approvals, purchase orders or research record, not merely a statement that you are interested.
Do I have to wait three years even if the medicine is urgently needed?
Under Section 84, yes. The three-year clock runs from the date of grant. Where the need is urgent at a national level, a different route exists: Section 92 allows the Central Government to issue a notification in a national emergency, extreme urgency or a case of public non-commercial use, after which the Controller can grant a licence without that waiting period. Section 92A separately covers licences to manufacture and export medicines to countries that cannot make them.
What royalty does a compulsory licensee pay?
There is no fixed rate in the Act. Section 90 tells the Controller to fix a royalty that is reasonable, taking into account the nature of the invention, what the patentee spent on making and developing it, the cost of obtaining and keeping the patent, and other relevant factors. Rates are set in each order after argument and evidence. The Controller also has to make sure the article reaches the public at reasonably affordable prices while leaving the licensee a reasonable profit.
Can the patentee stop a compulsory licence application?
The patentee cannot stop it from being filed, but it has a full opportunity to resist it. If the Controller finds a prima facie case, the application is published and served, and the patentee may file a notice of opposition under Section 87 and be heard. The patentee can show adequate Indian supply, a genuine licensing offer, reasonable pricing, or that delay in working was beyond its control, which can also support an adjournment under Section 86.
Considering or facing a compulsory licence application?
MYCrave helps you build the Section 84 record, from the licence request trail to supply and pricing evidence for the Controller.
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.