Probing The Ringfence – Examining The Interface Of Patents And Trade Secrets In India


Fostering competitive and innovative scientific temperament has been a cardinal aim of intellectual property protection for inventions. Competing regimes of patents in India and trade secrets have given refuge to inventors seeking protection of their inventions and proprietary information. This choice has now become an important decision in business strategy development. However, as inventions continue to increase in complexity, many inventors are now resorting to protect distinct aspects of their inventions through both, patents and trade secrets. Due to their fundamental contrast of disclosure and confidentiality, it was presumed that patents and trade secrets are mutually incompatible. Therefore, the existence of any complementariness between patents and trade secrets would have significant practical implications for inventors and legal practitioners alike. The possibility of integrating the two would have an overreaching impact on the interplay of limited protection and post-expiration competition under India patents law.


Patent protection in India is premised on the trade-off between limited exclusive rights over an invention and disclosure. In other words, inventors are enticed to disclose their inventions publicly in exchange for legal rights that confer exclusive control over the commercial horizons of the invention for a limited period of time. Conversely, trade secrets allow inventors to maintain the secrecy of commercially valuable information linked with inventions. However, unlike patents, they do not protect them from other interested parties who manage to get their hands on the invention through independent discovery or reverse-engineering.

Evidently, both patent and trade secret protection cannot be applicable to the same subject matter. However, the same cannot be said outrightly when different aspects of the same invention are considered. Distinct dimensions of one invention can form the subject matter of either a patent or a trade secret, thereby creating an overlap. Interestingly, doing so is not in violation of the legal policy of disclosure under patents law in India. This overlap becomes permissible since trade secrets can protect undisclosed information regarding the patented invention, which may have significant economic weight. This practice is known as layered protection. It allows inventors to protect all valuable information that has not been disclosed under the rigors of patent law, and to introduce additional dimensions of IP protection. Its validity was recognized in the landmark ruling of Wyeth vs. Natural Biologics Inc, wherein the manufacturing process of a drug was permitted to remain a trade secret, even after the expiry of the patent. This integrated model of protection is now increasingly gaining acceptance and businesses have begun developing their IP strategies keeping in mind the overlapping protection of patents and trade secrets.

However, fears regarding monopolization and the anti-competitive implications of such extended exclusivity have slowed down the complete legal recognition of this intersection. It is considered that by increasing the duration or strength of exclusive rights through the integration of patents and trade secrets would be in contravention of the fundamental bargain of patent law: limited exclusivity in exchange for disclosure. Growing acceptance of layered protection has put to rest such concerns. That being said, this tussle has been the source of landmark litigation and rulings.


The integration of patents and trade secrets in India has unfortunately not been given much attention. Although a party to the TRIPS Agreement, India does not have any statutory laws for the protection of trade secrets. Using the flexibility of Article 39(2) therein, the absence of legislation was filled by judicial pronouncements in cases of breach of confidentiality.

The only judgment on this issue was delivered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Prof. Dr. Claudio De Simone and Anr. vs. ActialFarmaceutical SRL. &Ors. In it, the Court discussed disclosure of best-mode under Section 10 of the Patents Act and concluded that such disclosure would also encompass the know-how in question, which was claimed to have been protected as a trade secret. In a nutshell, the Court argued that since patent disclosure requires inventors to disclose complete specifications of the invention, there can, therefore, exist no possibility of any trade secret protection being granted to it. Effectively, the Court rejected the layered-protection method and denied the complementariness of trade secrets and patents.

The inferences of this judgment lead to some other considerations that could form the basis of future disputes. Firstly, the judgment does not address the possibility wherein the best-mode disclosure under Section 10 does not include the most commercially viable method of using the otherwise patented invention. This would mean that inventors could still continue to protect relevant information under the veil of confidentiality while complying with the Patents Act. Secondly, it also does not venture into the possibility of the subsequent development of more efficient methods of production and uses being protected as trade secrets. Therefore, someone who is able to discover a better mode could, regardless of them being patent-holder in India or not, withhold from disclosing such information and protect it as a trade secret.


The lack of any settled statutory laws on trade secrets and the gap created by the judgment of the Delhi High Court has resulted in an unclear domestic position on the synergy between patents and trade secrets. Resort to practices followed in other leading IP jurisdictions could help guide inventors in the meantime.

In CFMT, Inc. vs. Yieldup Intern. Corp., it was held that enablement disclosure in patents is not synonymous with commercial efficiency. The dual-pronged approach was further validated in C&F Packing Co. vs. IBP, where the Court allowed trade secret protection over an aspect of the invention not covered under the patent. These decisions are premised on the fact that the competitive spirit and its resultant bargain under patent law cannot impede someone from taking a different form of protection. Rather, the coexistence of patents and trade secrets are premised on inter alia them serving different ethical and economic functions. The layered protection system was further reaffirmed in Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions Inc. vs. Renesas Electronics America Inc. In Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., commercially relevant information was not considered to be a necessary facet of patent disclosure. Accordingly, inventors and manufacturers are at liberty to protect profitable manufacturing processes for mass production under trade secrets.


It is evident that outright denial of the complementariness of patents and trade secrets would be an untenable stance. Even though they push the limits of the initial patent bargain, the use of both patents and trade secrets allows for broader protection. That being said, a balance between the aims of preservation market competition and a robust IP protection environment must be made. Doing so would require for pronouncement of appropriate laws and rules. Domestic laws on trade secrets have, accordingly, become an incumbent need for India. It would bring much-needed clarity and allow businesses and inventors to strategize and manage their IP with more efficiency.

Author: Ritwik Sharma – a Student of Institute of Law, Nirma University, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email or contact us at IIPRD.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

fourteen − ten =


  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010