Measures for Expediting Patent Examination in India. By Dr. Rajeshkumar H. Acharya

Similar documents
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. CS (OS) No of Versus CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R

Standing Committee on Patents. Questionnaire on the Publication of Patent Applications India Section

LALL & SETHI ADVOCATES

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-

The Patents (Amendment) Act,

AUSTRIA Utility Model Law

M/S. Iritech Inc vs The Controller Of Patents on 20 April, % Judgment pronounced on: 20th April, 2017

Utility Model Law I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Merck Sharp & Dohme & Anr. v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd

The Judgment can be accessed here at the website of the Delhi High Court. The Judgment can also be accessed here at India Kanoon website.

Notes and Disclaimers:

Practice for Patent Application

Order on the Examination and Other Processing of Utility Model Applications and Registered Utility Models

R 84a EPC does not apply to filing date itself as was no due date missed. So, effective date for and contacts subject matter is

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 20 th April, versus. Advocates who appeared in this case:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Notification PART I CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY

PERU ANSWERS IN THE NAME OF THE PERUVIAN GROUP. by Maria del Carmen Arana Courrejolles QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PUBLICATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS

Chapter 1800 Patent Cooperation Treaty

INDIAN PATENTS. Request for Examination. 48 months from priority*

Failure to adhere to the above can result to the irrevocable lapsing of a patent application.

November Contents. Article Willful or deliberate suppression standard under Section 8 of the Patents Act. Ratio Decidendi News Nuggets

SCHEDULE OF MINIMUM CHARGES

Kingdom of Bhutan The Industrial Property Act enacted on July 13, 2001 entry into force: 2001 (Part III, Sections 17 to 23: May 1, 2009)

HUNGARY Utility Model Act Act XXXVIII OF 1991 on the protection of utility models as consolidated on April 1, 2013

COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION (CIPC) (SOUTH AFRICA)

NEW ZEALAND - Patents - Schedule of Charges

AUSTRALIA - Standard Patents - Schedule of Charges

QUESTION PAPER REFERENCE: FD1 PERCENTAGE MARK AWARDED: 66%

QUESTION PAPER REFERENCE: FC3 PERCENTAGE MARK AWARDED: 59% six months after the publication of European search report

Candidate's Answer - DI

THE PATENTS ACT 1970

Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Programme between the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Annex 2 DEFINITIONS FOR TERMS AND FOR STATISTICS ON PROCEDURES

MANUAL FOR THE HANDLING OF APPLICATIONS FOR PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD (THE BROWN BOOK)

DRAFT PATENT LAW OF GEORGIA CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE (PHILIPPINES)

Chapter 2 Internal Priority

PRE-GRANT OPPOSITION POST-GRANT OPPOSITION

HONG KONG Trade Marks Rules as amended by L.N. 62 of 2006 ENTRY INTO FORCE: May 26, 2006 Chapter: 559A

EMERGING IP RIGHTS. Country Report, India. D. Calab Gabriel

Patents: opposition proceedings and nullity actions a comparison between Europe and Japan

Chapter 16 of the above-mentioned Agreement establishes provisions relating to the need to respect and safeguard intellectual property rights;

Highlights of The Indian Trade Marks Rules, 2017

The effects of the EPC

PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMME UPDATES FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: LAWS AND PRACTICES MODULE 3- ELECTIVE PAPER 9.4

HONG KONG Patents (General) Rules as amended by L.N. 40 of 2004 ENTRY INTO FORCE: May 7, 2004 Chapter: 514C

GLOSSARY of patent related terms in the FOUR OFFICE STATISTICS REPORT 2010 EDITION

Demystifying India s Patent Regime

Patents in Europe 2016/2017. Helping business compete in the global economy

Force majeure patent relief in New Zealand

CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE (BARBADOS)

TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999

PATENT. 1. Procedures for Granting a Patent

APAA Country Report KOREA APAA Council Meeting Penang 2014

United States. Edwards Wildman. Author Daniel Fiorello

PATENT PROSECUTION STRATEGIES IN AN AIA WORLD: SUCCEEDING WITH THE CHANGES

Attachment: Opinions on the Draft Amendment of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the People s Republic of China

WHAT HAS CHANGED for TRADEMARKS with THE NEW TURKISH IP CODE?

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS

Central Government Act The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958

Preamble: viewer providing a 3D effect changed to viewer 4 screen divided into at least two portions retained

Table of Contents I INTERNATIONAL PHASE BEFORE THE RECEIVING OFFICE AND INTERNATIONAL BUREAU.. 14

GLOSSARY of patent related terms in the IP5 STATISTICS REPORT 2015 EDITION

Procedures to file a request to the JPO (Japan Patent Office) for Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program

The opposition procedure and limitation and revocation procedures

DENMARK Patents Regulations Order No. 25 of 18 January, 2013 ENTRY INTO FORCE: 1 February, 2013

Rksassociate Advocates & Legal Consultants ebook

INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY ACT, No. 8 of 2010 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART II Patents

PATENT LAW OF GEORGIA CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

THE ACTS ON AMENDMENTS TO THE PATENT ACT */**/***/****/*****/******/*******

Appendix C THE REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS (PROTECTION) BILL, ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title, extent and

GLOSSARY of patent related terms in the IP5 STATISTICS REPORT 2016 EDITION

Prosecuting an Israel Patent Application and Beyond

CHAPTER 2 AUTHORS AND PATENT OWNERS Article 5. Author of the Invention, Utility Model, and Industrial Design Article 6.

4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA

MALAYSIA IP HANDBOOK

Financial Services Tribunal Rules 2015 (as amended 2017 and 2018)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment reserved on: 24 th April, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 08 th October, 2015

Patent Act, B.E (1979) As Amended until Patent Act (No.3), B.E (1999) Translation

Through Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus

Changes To Implement the First Inventor To File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Final Rules

pct2ep.com Guide to claim amendment after EPO regional phase entry

Information or instructions: Plea in abatement motion & Order to quash service Alternate Form

THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT, NO. 34 OF 2008 [31st December, 2008.]

Third Party Observations, Oppositions & Invalidation Trials of Patents in Japan

Section 5 Exceptions to Lack of Novelty of Invention (Patent Act Article 30)

EGYPTIAN PATENT OFFICE

IRELAND Trade Marks Rules as amended up to and including the February 2, 2016

Patent Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (PROCEDURE) RULES, (1) These rules may be called the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

Effective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents

Singapore Patents Rules as amended by S 739 of 2014 ENTRY INTO FORCE: Nov 13th, 2014

WHAT IS A PATENT AND WHAT DOES IT PROTECT?

And, whereas, the objections and the suggestions received from the public on the said draft rules have been considered by the Central Government;

"Commercial Use" means distribution or otherwise making the Covered Code available to a third party.

Trade Marks Act* (Act No. 11 of 1955, as last amended by Act No. 31 of 1997) ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

Schedule of Fees and Charges. Effective: 1st January 20 16

Assessment Review Board

The application which is filed with the KIPO and on which the applicant files a request for the PCT-PPH must satisfy the following requirements:

Transcription:

Measures for Expediting Patent Examination in India By Dr. Rajeshkumar H. Acharya

Indian phase entry time line 2 Do s: PCT National Phase Application In India Conventional Application In India Within thirty one months from the date of priority Within twelve months from the date on which the basic application was made Taboo: Priority can not be claimed under IPA

Examination Request 3 Do s: Examination request must be filed within 48 months from the date of priority Taboo: Failure to do- application is considered as withdrawn

Express Examination Request 4 An express request Application PCT Indian National Phase Application shall be examined immediately without waiting for the expiry of 31 months

Expedite Request for Examination 5 The application can be accelerated by filing Expedite Request for Examination; If the applicant in their corresponding international application select India as an International Search Authority or International Preliminary Examining Authority

Action by the IPO Normal /Express Examination Expedite Examination 6 Period within which the Examiner shall made the report Period within which the Controller dispose off the report of the examiner First statement of objections Ordinarily one months but not exceeding three months from the date of reference of the application to him by the controller Ordinarily one month from the date of the receipt of the report One month from the date of disposal of the report of the examiner by the controller Ordinarily one months but not exceeding two months from the date of reference of the application to him by the controller One month from the date of the receipt of the report 15 days from the date of disposal of the report of the examiner by the controller

7 An ordinary request for examination may be converted into Expedite Request by paying difference amount of fees The Controller may limit the number of request for examination to be received during the year by way of notice to be published in the official Journal.

Statement and Undertaking regarding foreign applications Do s: Applicant has to submit information regarding status of same application in other foreign countries till grant (i.e. Under examination, Published or Granted, Objected). Applicant has to submit detail particular regarding foreign application when demanded by controller (i.e. objection raised respect of novelty and patentability) 8 Taboo: If requirement is not filed or it contains false information then application can subject to revocation or opposition under IPA 1970

Chemtura Corporation V/s the Union of India Chemtura filed infringement of its patent Defendants- revocation application- not a valid patent as it failed to disclose the information required under Section 8 of the Act to the Controller The Court - vacated the interim injunction granted originallywhile vulnerability of a patent was an issue 9

Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. And Koninklijke Phillips Electronics 10 Defendants in - written statement - denied the plaint allegations but also made a counter claim for revocation of the suit Patent on the ground of failure of the plaintiff to disclose to the Controller of Patents (CPO) the information as required by Section 8 The plaintiff on 14.09.2012 submitted information U/S 8 requesting to consider it along with an attorney s affidavit stating information printed on the reverse of the first page was inadvertently omitted

Continue 11 The defendants contested -letter dated 14.09.2012 filed by the Patent Attorney - amounts to admission of suppression of vital information and patent should be revocked Held that though any violation of the requirement under Section 8 may attract Section 64(1)(m) for revocation of the patent, such revocation is not automatic

12 Amendments The amendment - allowed only if it is by way of disclaimer, correction or explanation. Only for the purpose of incorporation of actual fact. Amendment -not -allowed if the specification as amended describes matter not in substance disclosed or shown in the specification before the amendment or the amended claims do not fall wholly within the scope of a claim of the specification before the amendment

Divisional Application 13 If claims relating to more than one invention (i.e. question of Unity must be questioned) and such defect may be remedied by filing a further application. At any time before the grant of patent either by applicant, if so desires or with a view to remedy the objection raised by the Controller on the ground that the claims of the complete specification relate to more than one invention.

14 Time for putting application for grant Previously the time for putting grant was 12 Months from First report of objection without any extension Now the time is reduced to 6 Months from the date of First Report of objection Extension upto 3 Months; allowable with requisite fees Extension has to be filed before the expiration of requisite period

15 THANK YOU From: H K ACHARYA & COMPANY Advocates, Patent & Trademark Attorneys 19, HK Avenue, Swastik Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009 India Tel: 91.79.2642 5258/5259 Fax: 91.79.2642 5262/5263 E-mail: info@hkindia.com Web: www.hkindia.com