Section 96 of the Patents Act, 1970
Provision relating to licences of right
A repealed provision from the licences of right group, which dealt with claiming such a licence and settling its terms.
Official legal text
Indian drafting practice deletes a provision by omitting it, not by closing the gap. Renumbering would break thousands of existing citations, so the number is retained with a note. Records made while the provision was in force still cite it, which is the main reason this page exists.
This explanation is written for clarity, not for citation.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
Within the licences of right group, the Act had to answer a practical question: once a patent carried the endorsement, how did a person actually obtain the licence and on what terms? The scheme worked by allowing an interested person to approach the patentee for a licence, and where the two could not agree, the Controller settled the terms. The royalty and conditions were therefore fixed administratively rather than by the market, and the patentee had no power to refuse outright. This gave Indian manufacturers, particularly in the pharmaceutical and chemical sectors, a comparatively quick way to enter production during the decades when the scheme operated.
The whole group, Sections 95 to 98, was omitted by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, effective in 2003, as part of India's move to a TRIPS compliant regime. Terms are still settled by the Controller today, but only at the end of a contested compulsory licence proceeding rather than as a matter of entitlement. If you are researching how licence terms are fixed under the present law, the relevant provisions are Section 90, which lists the factors and conditions, Section 88, which allows terms to be revised in limited circumstances, and Section 93, which makes the Controller's order operate as a licence deed.
Why this section matters
Historians of Indian pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturing, and lawyers reading pre-2003 licences or judgments that refer to terms settled under this scheme.
Only when interpreting arrangements or decisions from the period before the 2002 amendment took effect.
Nothing under current law. It once supported a route in which the Controller fixed licence terms where the parties could not agree.
Nothing turns on it today, but citing it in a present day proceeding would simply be wrong.
How it works in practice
Reading a licence signed in 1995
During due diligence on an old chemicals business in Vadodara, a lawyer finds a licence executed in 1995 that recites that the patent stood endorsed with the words licences of right and that the royalty had been settled because the parties could not agree. The lawyer checks the present Act and finds this group of sections shown as omitted. The correct reading is historical: the document reflects the law as it was before the 2002 amendment came into force in 2003. The patent has long since expired, so nothing turns on the licence commercially. For any live patent in the same portfolio, access without the owner's agreement would now require a compulsory licence application under Section 84, decided on evidence, with terms settled under Section 90.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Under the old scheme a licence could be claimed and, if terms were not agreed, the Controller settled them.
- The provision was omitted along with the rest of the licences of right group by the 2002 amendment, effective 2003.
- Licence terms are now settled under Section 90 at the end of a contested proceeding, not as an entitlement.
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
This site does not carry a fee table. The First Schedule to the Patents Rules is the source, the rates vary with the applicant's category and with the mode of filing, and a figure quoted second-hand goes out of date quietly. How Indian patent fees work.
Related judgments
Case summaries are published only after a qualified reviewer has checked the judgment, the citation and the way the holding is described. Nothing has cleared that review for this provision yet, so nothing is listed here. We would rather show no case note than one that misstates what a court decided. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 96
How were licence terms fixed under the old licences of right scheme?
The person seeking the licence approached the patentee, and if the two could not agree, the Controller settled the royalty and conditions. Because the endorsement carried an entitlement, the patentee could not simply refuse. That is very different from the position today. Under Section 84 the applicant must first show a ground, must ordinarily have tried and failed to obtain a voluntary licence, and must go through a contested proceeding before the Controller decides whether to grant a licence at all.
Are licences signed under the old scheme still valid?
A licence executed while the scheme was in force was valid when it was made, and its effect depends on its own terms and on the life of the patent it related to. Most patents from that period have long expired, so the question is usually historical. Where an old agreement is still relevant, for example in due diligence or a royalty dispute, it should be read against the law as it stood at the time. It cannot be used to claim rights over any patent granted under the present Act.
Not sure which patent licensing route applies today?
MYCrave explains the current compulsory licence and Government use routes that replaced the old licences of right scheme.
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.