Form 27 Compliance Under Indian Patent Law: Can Non-Filing Increase the Risk of a Compulsory Licence?

Introduction

For patentees in India, Form 27 is often treated as a routine post-grant compliance requirement. That characterisation, however, understates its significance. Form 27 is the statutory Statement Regarding the Working of Patented Invention(s) on a Commercial Scale in India, furnished under Section 146(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”) read with Rule 131 of the Patents Rules, 2003 (“Patents Rules”). It provides the Indian Patent Office (“IPO”) with information concerning whether, and to what extent, a patented invention is being commercially worked in India.

The compliance framework underwent a significant change in 2024. The annual filing requirement was replaced with a statement covering three financial years, while the information required to be disclosed was substantially simplified. At the same time, non-compliance continues to carry consequences under Section 122 of the Patents Act. For patentees, however, the more consequential issue may arise beyond the immediate compliance penalty. Information concerning the working of a patent can become relevant in proceedings for a compulsory licence under Section 84, particularly where an applicant alleges that the patented invention is not being worked in India or that the reasonable requirements of the public are not being satisfied.

Accordingly, Form 27 should not be viewed merely as a filing deadline. It is part of the evidentiary record surrounding the commercial exploitation of a patent in India.

What Is Form 27 and Who Must File It?

Section 146(2) of the Patents Act empowers the Controller to require patentees to furnish information regarding the extent to which the patented invention has been commercially worked in India. Rule 131 prescribes Form 27 for this purpose. Under Rule 131(1), every patentee and every licensee in India is required to furnish the statement in Form 27. The obligation is therefore not confined to the registered proprietor of the patent. A licensee does not discharge the patentee’s obligation merely by filing its own statement, and a patentee’s filing does not dispense with the separate obligation of a licensee.

The rules nevertheless permit some consolidation at the portfolio level. A single Form 27 may cover multiple patents where the patents are related and are granted to the same patentee or patentees, subject to the conditions prescribed for such consolidated filing. This distinction is important for businesses with large patent portfolios. Portfolio consolidation can simplify the filing exercise, but it should not result in the assumption that the filing obligation of a patentee and that of its licensee are interchangeable.

The 2024 Amendment Changed the Filing Cycle

The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024 fundamentally altered the compliance calendar for Form 27. Previously, the Statement of Working was filed annually. Following the 2024 amendments, Form 27 is required once for every period of three financial years, beginning with the financial year immediately following the financial year in which the patent was granted. The statement must be filed within six months from the expiry of the relevant three-year period. For a patent falling within the current regime, therefore, the standard filing window ordinarily ends on 30 September following the completion of the relevant three-financial-year block.

For example, where a patent was granted during FY 2023–24, the first reporting block begins with FY 2024–25 and covers FY 2024-25, FY 2025-26, and FY 2026-27. The corresponding Form 27 is due by 30 September 2027. The IPO’s FAQ confirms this approach and specifically states that, for patents granted in FY 2023-24, the first Form 27 may be filed between 1 April 2027 and 30 September 2027.

There Are Extensions but They Must Be Used Carefully

One of the more important practical consequences of the 2024 framework is that the extension mechanism operates through two provisions, but the two stages should not be treated as an automatic nine-month extension in every case.

First extension: Rule 131(2): The proviso to Rule 131(2) permits an extension of up to three months, upon a request made in Form 4. Thus, a Form 27 ordinarily due on 30 September may be extended until 31 December if the prescribed extension is sought.

Further extension: Rule 138: Rule 138 separately permits the Controller to extend the prescribed period by up to six months, upon a request in Form 4, provided the request is made within the relevant period. The 2024 Rules expressly amended Rule 138 and also excluded certain Form 27 matters from the general extension/condonation mechanism under Rule 137. The interaction between the two provisions is therefore critical.

The IPO’s official Form 27 FAQ clarifies that:

• where the three-month Rule 131(2) extension is availed, the filing can subsequently be extended under Rule 138 up to 30 June of the following year; but
• where the patentee or licensee does not avail the three-month extension under Rule 131(2), the Rule 138 route can extend the filing period only up to 31 March of the following year.

Accordingly, the extension structure should not be presented as a blanket entitlement to file until 30 June.

Practical timeline

For a Form 27 having a base deadline of 30 September 2026:

The practical lesson is straightforward: a patentee should not assume that the Rule 138 mechanism automatically preserves the full additional six months after the ordinary September deadline.

What Happens to Pre-2024 Form 27 Defaults?

The transition from the annual regime to the triennial regime created an important question for patentees with historical Form 27 defaults. The IPO’s Form 27 FAQ expressly addresses this transitional issue. Where the due date for a Form 27 had already expired before 15 March 2024, the amended framework does not provide a mechanism for retrospectively filing that overdue statement under the new triennial regime. This is particularly relevant during patent portfolio audits. A company should therefore distinguish between:

1. historical Form 27 obligations whose deadlines had already expired before the 2024 amendments; and
2. Form 27 obligations arising under the new triennial regime.

The latter should not be treated as an opportunity to cure every historical omission. A historical gap should instead be identified as a separate compliance and litigation-risk issue and assessed in light of the patent’s working status, subsequent filings and any potential Section 84 exposure.

Non-Filing Attracts a Penalty Under Section 122

Form 27 is a statutory requirement, and non-compliance is not merely an administrative irregularity. Following the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, which brought the relevant amendments into force from 1 August 2024, the penalty framework under Section 122 was revised. The earlier criminal consequences were replaced with a monetary penalty regime.

Under the amended Section 122, refusal or failure to furnish the required information can attract a penalty of up to ₹1 lakh, with an additional penalty of ₹1,000 for every day after the first during which the refusal or failure continues. Furnishing false information carries a substantially more serious monetary consequence, calculated by reference to the person’s sales, turnover or professional gross receipts, subject to the statutory ceiling. The distinction is important. A late or missing Form 27 creates one category of statutory exposure. An inaccurate Form 27 creates another, potentially much more significant, category of exposure. Consequently, a rushed filing containing an inaccurate declaration may be considerably more problematic than a carefully prepared statement identifying the genuine status of the patent.

The Larger Issue: Form 27 and Compulsory Licensing

The more commercially significant question is whether a Form 27 default can expose a patent to compulsory licensing. The answer requires some qualification. Non-filing of Form 27 does not automatically result in a compulsory licence. Section 84 requires a separate application to the Controller, satisfaction of statutory conditions and consideration of the evidence placed before the Controller. However, the working status of a patent is directly relevant to one of the statutory grounds on which a compulsory licence may be sought.

Under Section 84(1), after the expiry of three years from the date of grant of a patent, any person interested may apply to the Controller for a compulsory licence on the ground that:

1. the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied;
2. the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price; or
3. the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India.

These grounds are independently recognised under Section 84(1). An applicant therefore does not necessarily have to establish all three grounds. At the same time, a Section 84 application is not simply a mechanism for penalising a patentee for failing to file Form 27. The statutory framework requires the Controller to examine the circumstances of the case, including the matters prescribed under Section 84 and the relevant provisions governing the grant of a compulsory licence.

For an ordinary application under Section 84, the applicant must also demonstrate the requisite efforts to obtain a voluntary licence from the patentee on reasonable terms and conditions, as contemplated by Section 84(6). The history of the Nexavar litigation demonstrates the importance of this requirement.

Why the Form 27 Record Can Matter in a Section 84 Proceeding

A Form 27 does not itself establish that a patent is being worked or not being worked in the legal sense of Section 84. Nevertheless, it can become an important piece of documentary evidence. For example, an applicant seeking a compulsory licence may examine:

• whether the patentee has consistently reported the invention as worked;
• whether the patent has repeatedly been reported as not worked;
• the reasons given for non-working;
• the licensing position disclosed by the patentee;
• whether the patentee’s statements are consistent over time; and
• whether the information in Form 27 is consistent with market availability and other documentary evidence.

The significance of a missing Form 27 is therefore contextual. A missing filing cannot simply be equated with proof that an invention was not worked. However, a gap in the statutory record can become relevant when considered alongside other evidence concerning manufacture, importation, supply, pricing, licensing and availability of the patented invention. For this reason, Form 27 should be regarded as part of the evidentiary trail surrounding patent working, rather than merely as a compliance form.

What Should Patentees Do If a Form 27 Deadline Is Approaching or Has Been Missed?

For patent owners and licensees, Form 27 compliance should ideally be managed as part of the broader patent portfolio compliance process.

• First, identify the applicable reporting cycle: Determine the patent’s grant year and identify the corresponding three-financial-year reporting block.

• Second, verify whether the filing obligation belongs to the patentee, licensee, or both: Where both parties have filing obligations, confirm that each required Form 27 has been separately addressed.

• Third, establish the factual basis for the “worked” or “not worked” declaration: The statement should be consistent with the company’s commercial records, manufacturing arrangements, imports, licensing arrangements and regulatory status.

• Fourth, do not use “other” as a default explanation: Where a patent is not worked, the reason selected should accurately reflect the commercial circumstances. A specific and supportable explanation is preferable to a generic statement that may create uncertainty in a future proceeding.

• Fifth, monitor the extension deadlines independently: The Rule 131(2) and Rule 138 mechanisms should be tracked separately. A patentee should not assume that failing to use the first extension automatically preserves the full six-month Rule 138 period.

• Sixth, conduct a historical compliance audit: Where older Form 27 filings are missing, identify the relevant reporting year and determine whether the filing deadline had already expired before the 2024 amendments. Historical defaults should be separately assessed rather than simply carried forward into the current triennial cycle.

• Seventh, preserve supporting records: The Form 27 filing should not be viewed in isolation. Internal records supporting the working status and the reasons for non-working should be retained so that the declaration can be substantiated if challenged.

Form 27 Compliance Calendar: Illustrative Examples

These dates illustrate the ordinary operation of the current triennial regime. The IPO’s FAQ should be consulted for transitional situations and the precise operation of the extension provisions.

Conclusion

The 2024 amendments have made Form 27 considerably easier to administer: the filing cycle has moved from annual to triennial, the disclosure requirements have been simplified and portfolio consolidation is possible in specified circumstances. But simplification should not be mistaken for diminished legal significance.

Form 27 remains a statutory obligation under Section 146(2), and non-compliance can attract monetary penalties under Section 122. More importantly, the information disclosed or omitted from the working statement can become relevant when the commercial exploitation of a patent is scrutinised in the context of a compulsory licence application under Section 84. The critical point is therefore not that “missing Form 27 triggers a compulsory licence.” It does not.

Rather, a failure to maintain an accurate and consistent working record can create avoidable compliance exposure and evidentiary vulnerability at a later stage, particularly once the three-year threshold for a Section 84 application has passed. For patentees with significant Indian patent portfolios, Form 27 should consequently be treated as part of substantive patent-risk management not merely as another deadline on the prosecution calendar.

Frequently Asked Questions

Last Updated on 25 August, 2026