Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 19 NOVEMBER 2023

Interpreting Section 3(H) Of The Patents Act, 1970

De Penning & De Penning
Explore more from De Penning & De Penning

Understanding the limits of patentability is vital as innovation continues to change the world. The non-patentable categories of innovations are specified in Section 3 of the Patents Act,1970...

IndiaIntellectual Property
Simran Kaur Khalsa
Simran Kaur Khalsa
Author LinkedIn connections

Understanding the limits of patentability is vital as innovation continues to change the world. The non-patentable categories of innovations are specified in Section 3 of the Patents Act,1970, which serves as a gatekeeper.

This section deals with how to strike a balance between innovation and safeguarding of public interests. From innovations that violate public morals or order to simple discoveries of scientific principles or even traditional knowledge.

In this blog, we will explore Section 3(h) and its ramifications on inventors, enterprises, and the overall intellectual property environment. Learn the reasoning for the exclusion of the subject area from patent protection and how this Section affects the structure of the patent system.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law