INTRODUCTION
There are three essential elements for an invention to be patented: it must be a new product or process, have economic significance (i.e., industrial applicability), and must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art. Section 2(j) of the Patents Act, 1970 defines ‘invention’ as a new product or process capable of industrial application. Section 2(ac) defines ‘capable of industrial application’ as meaning that the invention is capable of being made or used in an industry. In this article, we will examine one of the core requirements for an invention to be patentable worldwide: Industrial Applicability.
Article 33 of the Patent Cooperation Treaty outlines industrial applicability as a claim to be technically feasible for use in any industry. The term “industry” is broadly defined, encompassing various sectors, including agriculture. India introduced this provision after joining the treaty in 2001. Before this, patents were granted only for inventions deemed “new and useful.” The utility test focuses on whether the invention is practically achievable rather than an improvement. It helps prevent speculative patents by rejecting claims that are uncertain or depend on further research, thus safeguarding against patent trolling.
JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENT
In the F. Hoffmann-La Roche case, the court clarified that the industrial applicability requirement focuses on the commercial potential of an invention rather than the product’s final form. The court emphasized that even if an invention is not yet fully developed, it can still be granted a patent if it demonstrates some commercial viability. This highlights that the emphasis is on the invention’s potential for commercial use, not just the product itself. The industrial applicability criterion also addresses vague or speculative patent applications, ensuring that only inventions with concrete, achievable potential are considered.
In Indian Vacuum Brake Co. Ltd. v. E.S. Luard, the court interpreted that in patent law the term ‘utility’ is used, not in the abstract, but in a very special sense. Mere usefulness is not sufficient to support a patent. Citing Young and Neilson v. Rosenthal, the court stated that utility is a primary requirement for patentability. It is an invention that advances the existing knowledge in the industry about a particular product or process. The judgement emphasized that a patentable invention must contribute to the betterment of industry knowledge, improving upon the preceding versions or understanding of a specific article. This interpretation of utility focused on the innovation’s ability to enhance the trade’s existing knowledge, setting a critical standard for patent eligibility in India.
REQUIREMENTS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
EUROPE
In Europe, patents are governed by the European Patent Convention (EPO). Under Article 57 of the EPO, an invention must be capable of industrial application, meaning it can be made or used in any industry, including agriculture. This requirement is akin to the “utility” standard in other jurisdictions. However, merely using a substance in a particular way does not automatically qualify as industrial use unless there is a commercial application. Furthermore, inventions that contradict the laws of physics are considered invalid. In cases like those related to cosmetic enterprises, an invention was deemed to comply with Article 57. It could be used for continuous, independent, and financially profitable activities, thus qualifying as an industrial application.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In the U.S., one of the key requirements for patentability is utility, meaning the invention must be ‘useful’. For an invention to be considered useful, the applicant must demonstrate its practical utility in the patent application. If the applicant fails to provide sufficient details or if the utility described is not credible, the invention will not be granted a patent. While the U.S. law uses ‘practical utility’ rather than ‘industrial applicability’, the purpose is similar – ensuring the invention has tangible and beneficial applications. The USPTO requires that the invention demonstrate either specific and substantial utility or well-establishing utility, meaning sufficient details must be provided to make its utility immediately apparent to those familiar with the relevant field. The utility patent, one of the three types of patents in the US, applies to inventions that are new, useful, or improvements upon existing products.
JAPAN
In Japan, under Article 29(1) of the Patent Act, an inventor is entitled to apply for a patent if their invention is both novel and has industrial applicability. This is particularly relevant for inventions involving genes, chemicals, and organisms, where the specific use of the invention must be clearly stated.
The term ‘industry’ in Japan broadly includes sectors such as agriculture, mining, commerce, and services. However, while certain medical treatments may be patentable, medical and industrial use are generally not recognized for patent protection under Japanese law, the focus is on inventions that can be applied practically within these recognized industries.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, while the terminology and legal frameworks surrounding the utility requirement for patents differ across jurisdictions such as the US, Europe, and India, all share a common understanding that an invention must be industrially applicable to be patentable. This concept ensures that patents are granted only to innovations with tangible, industrial, or commercial utility. It aids in preventing abstract or incomplete ideas from receiving patent protection. India, in particular, has recognized the need for a robust patent system to stimulate business and economic growth, though challenges such as access to affordable medication for the poor remain.
The Patent Act of 1970 may require reforms to better address these issues, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. Meanwhile, Canada introduces the doctrine of sound prediction to assess utility, focusing on whether the applicant can reasonably infer the invention’s usefulness based on available evidence. Overall, the utility requirement serves as a crucial safeguard to ensure patents promote innovation that benefits society, particularly in areas like healthcare and industry.
AUTHOR – Dixit PARAKH
SOURCES
- The Patents Act, 1970.
- F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v. Cipla Ltd (CS (OS) No. 89/2008 and C.C. 52/2008).
- Indian Vacuum Brake Co. v. E.S. Luard (AIR 1926 CAL 152).
- The requirements of Industrial Applicability under the Indian Patent Law.
- Patentability criteria for an invention in India by Akanksha Chaudhary.
- Industrial Application of Patent by Samriddhi Vishen.
- Understanding the utility requirement of a patent by Triveni Singhal.
