Ordinary patent application in India can be filed in India along with a provisional or complete specification. It is further distinguishable from other patents that it does not claim any priority from any other application. Specification is a technical disclosure statement that enables a person ordinarily skilled in the art to perform the invention. It begins with title of the invention and contains field of invention, prior art, objective of invention, summary of invention, detailed description of the invention, drawings, claims and abstract containing summary of the invention. Provisional application do not contain claims and have to be followed by a complete specification within 12 months.
The basic mandatory requirements for filing an ordinary patent application in India are as follows:
The basic mandatory requirements for filing a Conventional Patent Application in India are as follows:
Please note that as per recent internal procedures issued by the Controller General of Patents, the patent applications shall only be published if the power of Attorney is filed with the application or before or within 3 months of requisitions made by the Controller. Further Abstract should be as per the Indian Patent Law and Practice and the specification should by in Hindi or English only then the application shall be published. The Controller shall issue a letter to this effect and within 3 months same should be rectified to allow the application to proceed towards publication in India. Publication is important as in India right accrues from the date of publication of Application in India.
Patent prosecution in India includes the following stages:
The Patent applications are ordinarily published after 18 months from date of filing or priority whichever earlier or when a request is made in this behalf provided no secrecy directions are imposed in this regard by Controller of Patents or Central Government. From the date of publication the applicant for patent has same right as a patentee but the right can be exercised only after grant of patent. The right can be exercised retrospectively from date of publication of application subject to Indian Limitation Act.
From the date of publication of the patent application in the Indian Patent Journal till the patent is granted, any person by way of representation can file an opposition to the Patent Application provided a request for examination has been filed. Thereupon, the patent shall not be granted until the opposition is set aside.
For substantive examination of the patent application a request for examination has to be filed within 48 months from date of filing of application or date of priority whichever is earlier. In case of secrecy directions the request has to be made within aforesaid period or within 6 months from date of revocation of secrecy direction whichever is later. In case of divisional applications the request has to be made within periods stated above or within 6 months from date of filing of divisional application whichever is later.
Once all the objection in respect of a Patent Application are complied /satisfied, a Letter of Patent Grant i.e. Letter Patent Document shall be issued. With effect from July 3, 2017, all Patent Grant Certificates shall be issued by email as well as shall be updated on E-register of Patents. Within 3 months of issuance of the Grant Certificate, all pending annuities are to be paid to keep the Patent alive (a maximum six months extension of time is available towards paying the annuity along with extension fee).
The patent grant can be opposed by any interested person within 12 months from the date of publication of the Grant of patent in the Patent Office Journal by a notice of opposition.
Duration of Patent is 20 years from date of filing in India for ordinary as well as conventional patent applications and for PCT national phase patent applications 20 years from date of filing of International PCT application. After grant of patent renewal fee has to be paid in respect of 3rd year onwards till the 20th year and must be paid before the expiration of respective years. The patent shall be revoked if renewal fee is not paid in prescribed time and during the period between the revocation of patent till it is restored, the patentee cannot take any action against any infringement of patent by anyone.
Every year from the date of Grant of Patent, a statement in respect of working of Patented invention in India for preceding financial year (April 1 to March 31) is to be filed within 6 months i.e. by September 30 every year. Non-filing of such statement can result in penalty by the Indian Patent office.
Patent are like moveable property and the patentee has the right to use, sale, transfer, license, mortgage and pledge the patent. However the agreement must be in writing, properly stamped and by all the owners of the patents and should be registered within six months of execution of agreement by filing an application for registration of agreement with the Controller of Patents. The terms of the agreement must be clear and explicit
After 3 years from Grant of Patent compulsory Licensing can be granted by Controller of Patents to any interest persons, including the license under the Patent, on the following grounds:
The circumstances constituting "failure to meet the reasonable requirements'' of public in respect of a patent are as follows:
Grant of Compulsory license is for the remaining term of patent unless a shorter period looks reasonable and required in case to the Controller.
While granting the license the Controller shall take into account the nature of invention, time elapsed, ability of applicant, his efforts for obtaining a license on reasonable terms. While granting a compulsory license reasonable royalty is also paid to the patentee having regard to nature of Invention, its utility, expenses incurred in maintaining patent grant in India and other factors.
Normally request for grant of Compulsory License is published and Patentee and other interested persons are afforded reasonable opportunity to defend the grant. But in case of national emergency and other urgent condition in public interest the Controller may first grant the License and then notify the Patentee and other interested persons.
Under special circumstances of medical emergency supported by notification by foreign country in this regard controller may grant compulsory license to meet the medical emergency in that country.
India allows 80% discount in official fee to natural persons/start ups/ small entity and educational institutions. However in the event the patent or application is assigned to non-natural person, the entire discounted fee has to be paid at the time of registration of assignment.
An affidavit duly executed and notarised affidavit along with evidence is required to be filed along with Form 28 to claim the start up/ small entity/ educational institution status. To know more about criteria and evidence required for claiming start up/ small entity/ educational institution status, please get in touch.
On February 24, 2021, the Government of Pakistan deposited its instrument of accession to the Madrid Protocol with WIPO’s Director General.
IPAB Dissolved with effect from April 4, 2021
Office of CGPDTM extends deadline for all IP matters relying on Supreme Court order dated January 10, 2022. The period between March 15, 2020 till February 28, 2022 shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation and a minimum 90 days limitation period shall be allowed from March 1, 2022.
salient features of the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016 as applicable for foreign Applicant in India
Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have to be interpreted in the purposive manner and clarified that if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business etc. at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place.
Mere posting of the letter on the website does not constitute communication of the objection or proposal in writing as required by Rule 38(4) of Trade Marks Rules, 2002. The Mumbai HC held that placing the notice of the website does not constitute compliance with that Rule 38(4) of the said Rules.
Object of grant of patent is to encourage scientific research, new technology and industrial progress and for that object exclusive privilege is granted. At the same time before awarding patent for any invention it has to be considered that the invention must be novel, must involve an inventive step and must have industrial application.
The expression “inventive step” is predominantly used for instance in European Union while the expression “non- obviousness” is predominantly used in United States of America. The assessment of the inventive step and non-obviousness varies from one country to another while the underlying basic principal remains the same.
Delhi high court upheld Judgement directing restoration and renewal of trademark MBD, 29 years after due date of renewal. Notice on form O3 is must intimating the registered proprietor about the deadline of renewal and consequence thereof.
Section 33 (1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides that if the earlier Registered Proprietor has acquiesced for a continuous period of 5 years in the use of a registered trademark, being aware of that use, he is not entitled to either seek invalidation of such later mark or oppose its use in relation to goods or services in relation to which it has been so used, unless registration of such mark was applied in bad faith.
Definition: Obviousness is a noun, derived from word obvious meaning easily seen, recognised or understood. The word obvious has originated from the Latin word “obvius” meaning “in the way”.
Trade dress refers to characteristics of the visual or sensual appearance of a product that may also include its packaging which may be registered and protected from being used by competitors in relation to their business and services.
The Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgment as to interpretation of Indian Patents Act and to the maintainability of challenge to a provision after it is repealed...
Delhi High Court in Double Coin Holdings Ltd. Vs. Trans Tyres (India) Pvt. Ltd. elaborately dealt with the issue as to who has right over a trademark, manufacturer or distributor/ importer
Delhi High Court held amendment in claims as allowed in another suit can not be allowed in a pending suit without amending plaint.
Computer Software & Business Method Patents In India: India does not allow patents for inventions related to mathematical or business method or computer programme “per se” or algorithms.
Obviousness is a noun, derived from word obvious meaning easily seen, recognised or understood. The word obvious has originated from the Latin word “obvius” meaning “in the way”.To interpret the doctrine of obviousness it is necessary to first understand the objective of grant of Patent.
"Non-obviousness" is the term for “inventive step” used in US patent law and codified under 35 U.S.C. §103. Thereby implying that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism.
Inventions pertaining to microorganisms and other Biological material were subjected to product patent in India unlike many developed countries. But with effect from 20.05.2003 India has started granted patents to invention related to microorganisms.
Compulsory Licence For Patents In India: Any interested person after expiry of 3 years from grant of patent even though if he is a license under the patent, may make an application to the Controller for grant of compulsory license
The Government of India is finalising a system that will prevent generic manufactures from getting marketing approval to sell patented drugs in India.
India like European Union does not allow patents for inventions related to mathematical or business method or computer programme "per se" or algorithms. The relevant provision under the Indian Patents Act reads as under...
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Indian arm of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd had challenged the constitutionality of India's customs regulations governing the import of IP goods in Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition. More precisely it has challenged the custom notification no. 47/2007 Customs (N.T.) dated 08.05.2007 called Intellectual Property Right (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007
Chennai High Court in Writ Jurisdiction set aside order dismissing the patent applications on basis that the request for examination was filed beyond the prescribed period of 48 months. no delay or fault can be attributed to the petitioner. For negligence/ docketing error by agent, the valuable statutory rights of the petitioner cannot be completely deprived of.
Kolkata High Court held that novelty resides in 2D design too. GUI on the finished article is a mechanical and manual process under section 2(d). A software developer develops a source code which creates the GUI. This source code is then embedded in the micro-controllers and micro-processors and is displayed in screen by illuminating pixels by electronic means. Therefore, the design is applied to the article by industrial process and means.
Delhi High Court clarifies Section 64 of the Patents Act, and observed that there is no limitation prescribed either in the Patents Act or under the Patents Rules, and held that a limitation period cannot be read it into the provision. Court held that filing of a revocation petition could be done at any point in time when such a person’s interest either arises or continues during the life/term of the Patent.
Controller allowed amendment in claims and granted the Patent (as well as dismissed the Pre Grant Opposition) after completion of pleadings, hearing and submissions of post-hearing written submissions and without any notice to Opponent to respond to the proposed amendments, the Patent was granted. Delhi High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter Back for reconsideration of pre-grant opposition.
Delhi High Court clarifies legal position as to maintainability of divisional application and held that a divisional application cannot be filed if there is no “plurality of inventions”. The Appeal was dismissed with cost.
Delhi High Court interprets Section 59 and allows amendment in claims and narrowing down of scope of claims (from product to process) in view of disclosure of process in the description.
Delhi High Court clarifies that when the subject matter of the patent application is showing technical advancement over the cited prior arts, and when the cited prior arts are considerably old, it is a clear indicator of non-obviousness.
Delhi High Court Interprets Section 3 (k) of Patents Act and "Technical effect" and "Technical contribution" for computer programs.
Delhi High Court in re: Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. Vs Joint Controller of Patents, vide its judgment dated March 29, 2023 set aside the impugned order rejecting grant of Patent and directed the Patent to be granted.
Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have to be interpreted in the purposive manner and clarified that if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business etc. at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place.
Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction cannot be conferred by joining two causes of action in the same suit when the court has jurisdiction to try the suit only in respect of one cause of action and not the other.
Supreme Court held that a composite suit would not entitle a court to entertain a suit in respect whereof it has no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise. Order 2 Rule 3 of the Code specifically states so and, thus, there is no reason as to why the same should be ignored.
Supreme Court held that for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a court only because two causes of action joined in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same would not mean that thereby the jurisdiction can be conferred upon a court which had jurisdiction to try only the suit in respect of one cause of action and not the other. Recourse to the additional forum, however, in a given case, may be taken if both the causes of action arise within the jurisdiction of the
5 Bench of Supreme Court held that Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
The Chennai High Court held that the time prescribed under Rule 20 for filing national phase PCT Application in India is 31 months from priority date, and the period, which could be extended by taking into consideration of facts and circumstances, is one month under Rule 138. The application for extension is required to be made within the period prescribed. Therefore, proviso would come into operation for the purpose of calculating period of one month. On true interpretation of rule 138, it is h
The Controller of Patents Granted India’s first Compulsory License to Natco Pharma Limited in respect of Patent no. 215758 of Bayer Corporation.
Delhi High Court set Guidelines to determine jurisdiction in Internet related cases
Agreeing with Single Judge's Consideration to adverse impact of grant of injunction on life saving drugs Delhi High Court imposed Cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs on Appellant
Supreme Court of India, Appeal against Pre Grant opposition order to be heard by High Court though Patent Act amended and IPAB came into existence
Delhi High Court declines Cadila Healthcare's plea to restrain use of 'Sugar Free'
Supreme Courts Bars Challenge To “Peter Scot” On Principles Of Acquiescence And/ Or Waiver
Delhi High Court vacated interim injunction and directs defendants to maintain accounts of manufacture, sale and supply
No balance of convenience or irreparable loss Chennai High Court set aside Injunction granted by Single Judge of High Court
Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgement as to interpretation of Indian Patents Act and to the maintainability of challenge to a provision after it is repealed, held that Challenge to a provision accrued before it is repealed is maintainable if the repealing act is silent
Mumbai High Court (DB) held that mere posting of the letter on website does not constitute communication of objection as required by rule 38(4) under the Trademark Rules.
Delhi High Court in a Letter Patent Appeal upheld the single Judge Order that issuance of notice on Form O3 mandatory before removing the mark. Restoration period to be counted from date of removal from Register not from due date of renewal
Supreme Court of India rejects Novartis Patent for Beta Crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate being violative of Section 2(1) (j), (ja) as well as 3(d) of Indian Patent Act in view of the earlier Patent for Imatinib free salt
70th Council Meeting of Asian Patent Attorneys Association was held in Taipei, Taiwan from November 9 to November 12, 2020