Tag Archives: patent law firm india

Patent PCT Application FIling India

The patent cooperation treaty (PCT) is a multilateral treaty entered into force in 1978. Through PCT, an inventor of a member country (Contracting state of PCT can simultaneously obtain priority for his/her Invention in all/ any of the member countries, without having to file a separate application in the countries of interest , by designating them in the PCT application .India joined the PCT on December 7, 1998.  All activities related to PCT are coordinated by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) situated in Geneva.  In order to protect your invention in other countries, you are required to file an independent patent application in each country of interest; in some cases , within a stipulated time to obtain priority in these countries .This would entail a large investment, within a short time, to meet costs towards filing fees, translation, attorney charges etc. In addition you are making an assumption which, due to the short time available for making the decision on whether to file a patent application in a country or not, may not be well founded.  Inventors of Contracting States of PCT on the other hand can simultaneously obtain priority for their inventions without having to file separate application in the countries of interest ; thus saving the initial investments towards filing fees, translation etc. In addition the system provides much longer time for filing patent application in member countries . The time available under Paris Convention for securing priority in other countries is 12 months from the date of initial filing. Under the PCT, the time available could be as much as minimum 20 and maximum 31 months. Further, an inventor is also benefited by the search report prepared under the PCT system to be sure that the claimed invention is novel. The inventor could also opt for preliminary examination before filing in other countries to be doubly sure about the patentability of the invention. The patent office or nay other office designated by each contracting state becomes a receiving office for receiving patent applications These applications are referred to International Searching Authorities (ISA) which usually the patent offices, appointed to carry out the patent search on a global basis. In case the receiving office is also an ISA, a separate referral is not required . There is also a provision to get a patent application examined by international preliminary Examining Authorities which, in most cases are ISA. A search report on the patent application filed with a receiving office is received by the applicant/inventor 16 months after the priority date which is nothing but the date of submitting the application in the receiving office. The International Bureau of the WIPO publishes the application and the search report 18 months after the priority date. The original application is then sent to the designated offices indicated in the application. Within two months of this i.e. by the 20th month, the applicant will have to formally apply to the patent offices of these countries for grant of patents by paying official fees and completing other formalities stipulated by these offices (some countries). In case translated copies of the application are required, the same has to be furnished by the applicant. Inspite of submitting the request for grant of patents in designated countries in the 20th month after the priority date, the priority in these countries is the same as the date of filing the original PCT application. If applicant/inventor has requested for an examination report, the report is usually received by the applicant /inventor about 28 months after the priority date. Within two months of this, the applicant/inventor will have to formally apply for grant of patents in designated countries .The priority of the application is maintained in the designated countries.

 (a) By the end of the 20th to 31st month the applicant is in a better position to assess the quality of the invention being protected as a detailed search report or an examination report or both would be available to help making an assessment.

(b) Applicants can re-evaluate their decision about filing applications in all the designated countries after a long gap of 20 to 31 months.

(c ) If not satisfied, applicants may decide to drop a few countries from the list. This decision would also be influenced by the changing market conditions.

(d ) Applicants can delay their investment in respect of the national phase or the regional phase applications by 20 to 31 months without sacrificing priority.

Patent not working in India

A patent that has not been worked for three years from its grant is vulnerable to issuance of a compulsory license.  Any interested party which has been unsuccessful in procuring a voluntary license from the patentee can file an application with the Controller requesting for a compulsory license after expiry of three years from grant of the patent. Such person needs to establish the occurrence of any of the three conditions mentioned in Section 84of the Act. One such condition is that the patent should have ‘not worked in the territory of India’. If the Controller is satisfied, he may grant the applicant a non-exclusive compulsory license for the balance term of the patent, unless a shorter term is consistent with public interest. The patent can subsequently be revoked after the expiration of two years from the grant of the compulsory license on application by any third party or the Government if it is established that the compulsorily licensed patent has not satisfied the purpose for which it was granted. Information contained in Form 27 filed, would be available to such applicant seeking a compulsory license to establish the non-working of the patent. There is no provision for suo motu revocation by Controller. Neither is ‘non-working’ a ground for revocation of a patent by a person interested under Section 64 of the Act. Therefore, non-working would not directly lead to revocation of patent.

Patent assignment, revocation & licence India

Assignments

A patentee may assign the whole or any part of the patent rights to the whole of India or any part thereof. There are three kinds of assignments: legal assignment, equitable assignment and mortgages. An assignment of an existing patent is a legal assignment where the assignee may enter his name as the patent owner. A certain share given to another person is called an equitable assignment and a mortgage is when patent rights are wholly or partly transferred to obtain money.

Licenses

A patentee may, by a license, permit others to make, use, or exercise, the invention which otherwise would not be allowed. The license should be in writing and the terms of which must be given in the application filed with the Controller. A license maybe given in express terms or implied from the circumstances. An exclusive license excludes all other persons including the patentee from the use of invention In a limited license the limitation may arise as to persons, time, place, manufacture, use or sale.

Compulsory Licenses and Government use of inventions

Under certain circumstances like when reasonable requirements are not satisfied, a very high royalty is quoted, when a patent cannot work without another related patent or on notification by the Central government, the Controller can grant a license to an interested person.

The Central or State government can use for a purpose of its own all patented inventions or processes either with or without royalty.

 Revocation of a patent

A patent may be revoked by various modes namely revocation in the public interest by the Government or relating to atomic energy by Controller. A patent may also be revoked for non-working. The High Court may revoke a patent on noncompliance with the requirements for use of an invention or on petition by a person interested on various specified grounds.

A patentee may at any time offer to surrender his patent by giving notice to the Controller, whom after hearing the parties may revoke the patent.

Not Patentable Invention India

There are some products and processes, which are not patentable in India They are classified into two categories in the patent act

a) Those which are not inventions (S.3)

b) Invention relating to atomic Energy (S.4)

Various types of non-patentable inventions under Section 3 are as follows-

3(a) An invention which is frivolous or which claims anything obvious contrary to well established natural laws.

Merely making in one piece, articles, previously made in two or more pieces is frivolous. Mere usefulness is not sufficient (Indian vacuum brake co. ltd vs. Laurd (AUR 1962 CAK 152).

Perpetual motion machine alleged to be giving output without any input is not patentable as it is contrary to natural law.

3(b) An invention the primary or intended use or commercial exploitation of which could be contrary to public order or morality or which causes serious prejudice to human, animal or plant life or health or to the environment

3(c) The mere discovery of a scientific principle or the formulation of an abstract theory or discovery of any living thing or non-living substances occurring in nature;

3(d) The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.

Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes,   combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.

[Note: Before amendment of Section 3 (d) by the Patents (Amendments) Ordinance 2004 it reads as “mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus…”The insertion of the word “mere” before ‘new use for a known substance’ in this clause by the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance 2004, is for the purpose of drafting clarity only as without it the sub-section would have remained ambiguous. This does not restrict the nonpatentability and give rise to ambiguity and possible misuse. There is no need of giving wider meaning to it.]

3(e) A substance obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of the properties of the components thereof or a process for producing such substance:

3(f) The mere arrangement or re-arrangement or duplication of known devices each functioning independently of one another in a known way.

3(h) A method of agriculture or horticulture.

(i) A method of producing a new form of a known plant even if it involved a modification of the conditions under which natural phenomena would pursue their inevitable course is not patentable. (N.V. Philips Gloeiammpenfabrieken’s Application 71 RFC 192).

3(i) Any process for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic diagnostic therapeutic or other treatment of human being or any process for a similar treatment of animals to render them free of disease or to increase their economic value or that of their products.

Plants and animals in whole or any part thereof other than microorganisms but including seeds, varieties and species and essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals;

Example: Clones and new variety of plants are not patentable. But process / method of preparing Genetically Modified Organisms are patentable subject matter.

3(m) A mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental act or method of playing game;

3(n) A presentation of information

3(o) Topography of integrated circuits;

INVENTIONS RELATING TO ATOMIC ENERGY (S.4)

“No Patent shall be granted in respect of an invention relating to atomic energy falling within subsection (1) of section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962

Patent Examination law India

Request for Examination

The process of examination starts with a request for examination. The request has to be made within 36 months from the date of priority or filing. However, if secrecy directions have been given for the application, the request can be made six months after the directions are revoked or thirty six months from the date of priority or filing, if that date is later.

Examination

On receiving the request, the controller shall direct the patent application to the Examiner for examination. To start with, the examiner makes a formal examination by verifying the propriety and correctness of all documents filed with the application. Later, he verifies the patentability of the application. The patentability analysis includes all patentability requirements.

After confirming that the application falls within the scope of patentable subject matter, the examiner conducts a prior art search to check if there is prior art, which anticipates the invention claimed. Prior art search for anticipation includes search for anticipation by publication, filing of complete specification, etc. He then verifies the existence of inventive step, Industrial application, and Enablement and Best mode.

The examiner will give the examination report within 1 month from the date of reference by controller and that term shall not exceed three months. If the examination report is adverse, the controller sends a notice to the applicant and gives him an opportunity to correct and if necessary an opportunity of hearing. The Controller might ask the applicant to amend the application in order to proceed further. If the applicant does not make such changes, the application might be rejected.

The Controller has the power to divide the application, post date the application, substitute applicants and reject the application. An order of division will be given if the application contains more than one invention and if it is required to file separate applications for each invention. The application might be post dated to a period of six months if requested by the applicant. Substitution of inventors is generally done if the inventor has been wrongfully mentioned or if a joint inventor has not been mentioned in the application.

The controller has the power to reject the application, if the applicant does not comply with his requirements.