The Supreme Court of India has issued notice on a plea in Gunjan Sinha v. Union of India that asks whether India should adopt a US-style Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) system.
Today, a patent lasts 20 years from the filing date, so time spent during the patent examination process runs within that 20-year term. The petition seeks an adjustment to account for that period.
The Court has only issued notice so far and the matter is scheduled for its next hearing on 26 October 2026. If PTA is ever adopted, it could change how patent terms are counted.
The Supreme Court’s Latest Move
The Supreme Court is now considering a question that could affect how long patent owners enjoy their rights.
In Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., the Supreme Court has issued notice to the respondents.
The petition challenges the current position under Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. It asks the question of whether patent owners should get extra protection when a large part of the 20-year term is consumed by delays in granting the patent.
The Court has also asked Advocate Kruttika Vijay to assist as amicus curiae in examining the issue. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on 26 October 2026.
Also Read:- Generative AI Patent Landscape 2026: Trends, Key Players and Emerging Technologies
How Did the Patent Term Issue Reach the Supreme Court?
The dispute began with a patent application filed on 2 May 2005 and granted on 28 December 2012, after a wait of more than seven years. Under Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, a patent lasts 20 years from the filing date so the clock keeps running while the application is still being examined.
The petitioner, Gunjan Sinha, argues that this delay eats into the owner’s protection and is never given back. The petition points to the US Patent Term Adjustment model which compensates for certain Patent Office delays as a possible fix.
Later, the dispute was taken to the Supreme Court for further review.
What Is the Core Legal Issue?
Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970 states that a patent is valid for 20 years from the date of filing rather than from the date of grant. That means any time spent waiting for the Patent Office to decide is already part of the 20 years.
Section 11A(7) gives an applicant certain rights and privileges after the application is published and before the patent is granted but it does not change the term fixed by Section 53.
The Calcutta High Court treated the two provisions as working in different areas. The central question is whether a delay in granting a patent should justify a term longer than 20 years from the filing date. This question remains open before the Supreme Court.
Calcutta High Court Decision
The Calcutta High Court had earlier ruled on the issue of patent term under Section 53.
- The Calcutta High Court upheld the validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970.
- It did not accept the argument that a US-style patent term adjustment system should be introduced through a court order.
- The Court observed that creating a new way to make up for patent-processing delays would need action from Parliament.
- The appeal was dismissed.
Why It Matters for Patent Owners
A patent that takes years to grant may leave less time than the owner expected, since the 20 years run from the filing date. That shorter remaining term can matter for licensing, commercialization, investment, enforcement and technology deals.
Not every delayed patent would automatically receive extra protection. The Supreme Court has not decided the issue, so any change remains a possibility. If the law does change, owners may need to look differently at prosecution delays and the commercial life left in their patents.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court has issued notice in the case, and Advocate Kruttika Vijay has been asked to assist as amicus curiae. The case is scheduled for its next hearing on 26 October 2026. Patent owners should watch for any further orders, the arguments from both sides and how the Court reads Section 53.
It will also be important to see how the Court considers the relationship between prosecution delays and the statutory patent term under Section 53.
The Supreme Court’s latest move does not bring Patent Term Adjustment to India. It simply puts an important question before the Court: should a long delay in granting a patent have any effect on the 20-year term counted from the filing date?
For patent owners, the case raises an important question about how prosecution delays should be treated when calculating the effective period of patent protection. The eventual decision of the Court will determine whether the existing position remains unchanged or develops further.
Also Read:- Pharmaceutical Patent Infringement in India: How Courts Compare Competing Drug Products?