In India’s patent regime, granting a licence, especially a compulsory licence, is not the end of oversight. If the licensed terms become onerous, or the working conditions change, a licensee (or sometimes others) may seek to revise those terms through Form 20 under Section 88(4) of the Patents Act, pursuant to Rule 100 of the Patents Rules. Revision requests allow the licensee to seek fairer royalty, extended territories, or altered obligations when the original terms impede efficient working.
This blog will guide you through:
The legal basis and triggering conditions for a Form 20 application
Who can file and when
Required contents and drafting approach
Step-by-step procedure and key issues
Practical strategies and cautionary points
Legal Basis & When Revision Can Be Sought
Statutory Authority: Section 88(4) + Rule 100
Section 88(4) of the Patents Act empowers a licensee to apply to the Controller for revision of the terms or conditions of a licence granted under the Act (typically a compulsory licence).
Rule 100 of the Patents Rules prescribes Form 20 as the format for such application.
Thus, Form 20 is the correct route whenever a licensee considers that the terms fixed by the Controller have become unduly burdensome or no longer workable, and seeks relief via the statutory revision power.
Triggering Circumstances & Timing
You may file under Form 20 when, after the licence has been granted:
The royalty rate or remuneration is too high relative to the licensee’s cost structure or market conditions.
The territory or scope allocated is insufficient to permit efficient exploitation.
The licensor has introduced restrictive obligations (reporting, supply quotas, exclusivity clauses, etc.) that obstruct working.
After changes in market, technology, demand, or regulation, the original terms are no longer sustainable.
There is no rigid “waiting period” in the statute; however, one must show that the licensed terms have, in practice, become unreasonable or impracticable. The revision application is not intended for trivial adjustments but for realignment to workable and equitable conditions.
Who May Apply & Standing
The licence-holder under the licence (typically compulsory licence) has the right to apply for revision. In Form 20, the applicant states that they are “holding licence under the patent granted by the Controller by an order dated …”
If there are multiple licensees, each may separately apply, provided their individual obligations or working are affected.
If the licence is non-exclusive, each licensee’s scope and terms may be distinct; revision must address that particular grant.
It is generally not a route for third parties (non-licensees) to meddle with licence terms; the statute contemplates the licensed party seeking adjustment. However, in some circumstances, a patentee or other “interested person” might oppose a revision or seek to intervene after notice by the Controller.
Key Contents & Drafting Strategy
The Form 20 official application (available from the Indian Patent Office) begins with basic particulars and then requires a statement of grounds.
Here is how you should structure and support your request:
Applicant / Licensee Information
Name, address, nationality
Title or nature as licence-holder (attach licence order)
Particulars of Patent & Licence
Patent number, title, date of grant
Date on which licence was granted by Controller
Terms and conditions currently in force
Reason for Revision & Detailed Statement of Facts
The applicant must state that:The terms set by the Controller have proved more onerous than originally expected
They are unable to work the invention under the existing terms
The circumstances that justify the revision are listed in the accompanying statement in duplicate (i.e., two copies)
In that accompanying statement, you should lay out:
Financial / cost structure, margins, capital constraints
Market demand, price sensitivity, distribution challenges
Cases of non-performance of obligations due to overly restrictive terms
Comparison to what was anticipated at the time of licence
Any external changes (regulation, competition, raw material cost, technology)
Prayer / Relief Sought
The applicant must explicitly request the Controller to revise the terms (e.g. reduce royalty, expand territorial rights, relax quotas)
Verification & Signature
Declaration that facts are true to best of knowledge
Signature of applicant or authorized agent
Annexures / Supporting Documents
Include (as far as available):Copy of the licence order under which you hold the licence
Financial statements, projections, cost breakdowns
Market data, demand surveys
Correspondence with patentee or Controller
Any prior compliance difficulties under the licence
In drafting, your narrative must convincingly show that the licence terms, though once acceptable, now hamper effective working or commercial viability. Avoid vague or conclusory statements; link facts to the statutory standard: the licence should remain workable and fair.
Procedure After Filing Form 20
Once you file the revised-terms request:
Controller’s Initial Scrutiny
The Controller reviews whether Form 20 is complete and whether there is a prima facie case that the terms deserve revisiting.Issuance of Notice & Publication
If admitted, the Controller will issue notice to the patentee and publish the revision application in the Official Journal inviting contest.Objections / Counter-submissions
The patentee (and any interested parties) may submit objections, evidence, and arguments on why the original licence terms should be preserved.Hearing / Evidence Stage
Both sides may file evidence, be heard by the Controller, make submissions. The Controller may frame issues, direct cross-examination, ask for additional data.Decision by Controller
The Controller may revise the licence terms (in whole or part) or reject the revision application. The order will explain the reasons based on fairness, evidence, working ability, and public interest considerations.Appeal or Review
If any party is dissatisfied, they may seek review or judicial challenge to the Controller’s order (for example, Letters Patent Appeal or High Court review depending on jurisdiction).
Thus, the process mirrors compulsory licence and other contested proceedings, with notice, hearing, and reasoned order.
Strategic Insights & Pitfalls to Watch
Timeliness & urgency: Don’t wait until losses mount or default occurs, apply when it becomes clear the original licence is unworkable.
Strong factual foundation: The burden lies on the licensee to prove that the terms are no longer fair or workable. Generic statements won’t suffice.
Comparative benchmarks: Use comparable licences, royalty norms in the sector, or market benchmarks to support that your requested terms are reasonable.
Anticipate patentee arguments: The patentee may argue that you accepted terms willingly, or that business risk is part of licence. Preempt with evidence of changed circumstances.
Scope of revision is limited: The Controller cannot completely substitute your role; the revision must be within bounds of fair adjustment, not rewrite the licence altogether.
Public interest balancing: If the licence covers essential goods or health sector, the Controller may weigh public interest heavily.
Document retention & transparency: Maintain all internally documented cost projections, compliance difficulties, and correspondence as evidence.
Extensions / Delay condonation: In some cases, delay in filing or procedural irregularities may need a Form 4 or condonation as per general rules.
