Article written by: Nishita Singh
Year: Final year law student from LLB Batch
College: Amity Law School, Noida
INTRODUCTION
A significant ruling in Humanity Life Extension LLC v. Union of India (2023) was rendered by the Delhi High Court, which denied the petitioner’s request to extend the statutory time for submitting a National Phase Patent Application under Rule 138 of the Indian Patent Rules. The petitioner requested that its rights be restored as a result of inadvertent delays, citing Rule 49.6 of the Patents Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Regulations. The court, however, denied the appeal, highlighting the rigorous application of domestic statutory deadlines and restating India’s concerns under the PCT, which restrict the implementation of some of the international treaty’s terms within India. The decision highlights the significance of national legal systems in patent law, especially with regard to timeliness.
SYNOPSIS
The US-based medical device firm Humanity Life Extension LLC filed a PCT application for “Systems and Methods for Treating Blood” on February 5, 2018, after the filing of a US patent application on February 6, 2017. On September 5, 2019, the petitioner’s Indian patent attorney failed to submit the National Phase application by the deadline. The petitioner’s October 1, 2019, effort to file the National Phase Application was rejected by the Indian Patent Office. The petitioner made a second attempt on October 9, 2019, using PCT Regulation 49.6, arguing that the delay was unintentional and ought to be permitted. This application was also rejected by the Indian Patent Office. Additionally, this application was denied by the Indian Patent Office. Questioning whether Rule 49.6 of the PCT, which permits the reinstatement of rights in cases of inadvertent delays, should supersede the domestic law on filing deadlines under Rule 138 of the Indian Patent Rules, the petitioner contested the Patent Office’s decision before the Delhi High Court.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The Humanity Life Extension LLC v. Union of India decision has important legal ramifications, especially for how Indian local patent law and international patent law—represented by the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)—intersect. The ruling highlights how national patent rules take precedence over international commitments in cases where they contradict. In this case, the PCT’s requirements were superseded by India’s adherence to its own legal system, which is outlined in the Indian Patents Act and the Indian Patent Rules.
Despite being a party to the PCT, the ruling highlights India’s sovereign right to autonomously administer its patent system, especially where its domestic interests clash with its duties under international treaties. According to PCT Regulation 49.6(f)[2], India has expressly expressed a reservation that prohibits the use of provisions relating to the restoration of rights following unintentional delays. This ruling emphasizes the importance of this reservation by effectively making PCT Rule 49.6 inapplicable outside of India, particularly with regard to extensions for missing deadlines non-national phase patent applications. The Court further affirms that the Indian government has the authority to amend and enforce domestic patent rules, including Rule 138, provided that the modifications are consistent with the objectives of the Indian Patents Act. This lends credence to the idea that India’s legal system is free to alter itself, provided that it does not interfere with its obligations under international treaties. The Court’s acknowledgment of this idea highlights the balance between India’s participation in global intellectual property systems and its right to maintain control over local patent procedures.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENT
The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Diebold Self Service Systems v. Union of India served as the foundation for the Humanity Life Extension LLC v. Union of India ruling. In Diebold, the Court also considered whether the PCT Regulations in India were lawful, especially in light of India’s concerns about PCT Regulation 49.6(f). In the Diebold case, the Court observed that PCT Rule 49.6, which ensures the restoration of rights in the event of unintentional delays, was deemed inapplicable within India’s borders due to India’s reservation. The Court determined that India was not subject to the reinstatement requirements of the PCT[3].
The judgment from Humanity Life Extension LLC supports and reinforces this position. According to the Court, India’s objection under PCT Regulation 49.6(f) prevents the implementation of PCT regulations for the reinstatement of rights, reinforcing the notion that national law governs procedural concerns such as filing deadlines. The Court made clear that, even though India is a member of the PCT, matters of national interest, such the rules regulating patent filing procedures, are under the jurisdiction of the local legal system. This ruling also supports the Court’s position that, in conflict situations, national laws supersede international commitments, particularly with regard to procedural issues like the deadlines for filing national phase patent applications. Therefore, the decision upholds a consistent judicial perspective that, irrespective of international treaties like the PCT, national sovereignty is crucial when it comes to patent filing deadlines and processes. This precedent will be important in the future when Indian law may clash with the application of foreign laws, as those specified in the PCT.
JUDGEMENT
In the matter of Humanity Life Extension LLC v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court rejected the petitioner’s request to extend the date for filing the National Phase Patent Application in compliance with Rule 138 of the Indian Patent Rules. The Court upheld the amended Rule 138, emphasizing strict respect to the deadlines set forth under Indian patent law. It rejected the petitioner’s reliance on PCT Regulation 49.6, stating that India’s reservation under PCT Regulation 49.6(f) rendered the section inapplicable in India. When the Court reaffirmed that national patent laws take precedence over international treaties in cases of disagreement, the petition was ultimately dismissed[4].
CONCLUSION
The ruling in Humanity Life Extension LLC v. Union of India upholds the supremacy of domestic patent rules over clauses in international treaties in cases where they clash. It emphasizes the significance of meeting statutory deadlines as outlined in the Indian Patent Rules and the sovereign right of India to uphold its own legal system. India’s reservations under international treaties such as the PCT are legally enforceable and must be observed within the nation’s jurisdiction, as the ruling also serves as a reminder. Even while international agreements like the PCT seek to standardize patent systems worldwide, the decision affirms that India, like other countries, has the right to enforce more stringent filing deadlines for patents, which supersede international flexibility clauses like Rule 49.6. The applicability of domestic law over international law in patent law disputes is significantly established by this case, especially in regards to procedural timetables and extensions.
[1] Nishita Singh https://www.linkedin.com/in/nishita-singh-bb80ba287?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app
[2] Lexology https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b1ebf6f7-04fd-46c5-9294-f69f4c0bec40
[3] Casemine https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64baa4d92532563c8df0294d
[4] Lexology https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b1ebf6f7-04fd-46c5-9294-f69f4c0bec40
