Offences and penalties under the Patents Act — Intellectual Property Rights I Notes

Offences and penalties under the Patents Act

You cannot stamp “Patented” on a product that is not patented — doing so misleads the public and is a punishable offence. The Act’s penalty provisions guard the integrity of the patent label, separate from the civil suit for infringement.

The main offences

These are criminal penalties (fines, sometimes imprisonment), distinct from the civil remedies for infringement in Topic 14:

s.118 — contravention of secrecy directions (s.35, inventions relevant to defence): imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both.
s.120 — unauthorised claim of patent rights. Falsely representing that an article is patented (e.g. marking it “patent” or “patented” when it is not) — fine which may extend to ₹1,00,000.
s.121 — wrongful use of the words “patent office”. Using words suggesting a place of business is officially connected to the Patent Office — punishable with fine.
s.122 — refusal or failure to supply information to the Controller/Central Government, or supplying false information — fine, and for false information imprisonment up to 6 months.
s.123 — practising as a patent agent when not registered — fine.

The point of these offences is public protection: they keep people from lying about patent status or obstructing the Patent Office, which the civil infringement action does not address.

Patents Act, 1970, s.120: “If any person falsely represents that any article sold by him is patented in India or is the subject of an application for a patent in India, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.”

In Simple Terms: Beyond suing infringers, the Act punishes cheating about patents — falsely calling a product “patented” (s.120), misusing the words “patent office” (s.121), lying to the Controller (s.122), or posing as a patent agent without registration (s.123). These are fines/imprisonment, not damages.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the false “patented” label

Facts. A trader stamps “Patented in India” on a product for which no patent or application exists, to impress buyers.

Rule. s.120 — falsely representing that an article is patented is an offence punishable with a fine up to ₹1,00,000.

Apply. The trader’s stamp is a false representation of patent status, squarely within s.120, regardless of whether anyone was actually deceived.

Conclusion. The trader commits an offence under s.120 and is liable to a fine up to ₹1,00,000.

flowchart TD
    OFF["Offences under the Patents Act"]:::root
    OFF --> S120["s.120 — false claim that an article is patented"]:::leaf
    OFF --> S121["s.121 — misuse of 'patent office'"]:::leaf
    OFF --> S122["s.122 — false info / refusal to inform Controller"]:::leaf
    OFF --> S118["s.118 — breach of secrecy directions"]:::leaf
    OFF --> S123["s.123 — unregistered person practising as agent"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;

Case Laws

Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v Hindustan Metal Industries (1979) — underlines that patent rights (and misrepresentation of them) must rest on a genuine grant.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Intellectual Property Rights I topics