Concessions to Start Ups, Individuals and Small Enterprises
The new rules offer 50% discount on the official fees for startups and SME’s (small and medium enterprises) with respect to filing an application for registration of a trademark and for expedited processing of an application for registration of a trademark. Filing an application for registration of a trademark is Rs. 5000 (Paper Filing) / Rs. 4500 (e-filing and expedited processing of an application for registration of a trademark is Rs. 20000 (e-filing only)
The applicant should be recognized as a startup by the competent authority under the Startup India initiative. To qualify as a small enterprise, the applicant’s investment in plants and machinery alone should not exceed ten crore rupees if the applicant is a manufacturer. However, if the applicant is a service provider, the investment in equipment in general should not exceed five crore rupees.
Unlike the Indian Patent Amendment Rules, 2016 where the applicant being a startup/individual/SME enjoys discounted costs for the entire life of a patent application and even subsequently thereafter, in respect of renewal of the patent, the Trademark Rules, 2017 has limited the discounts with regard to Startups/Individuals/SME’s only filing and expedited examination of the trademark application.
Global (116 countries) R&D investments will increase by 3.4% in 2017 to $2.066 trillion.
More than 115 countries having significant R&D investments (more than $100 million)
USA tops the list with 25.5%, followed by China 20.8%, Japan 8.4%, Germany 5.4%, South Korea 4.1% and India 3.8%.
India spends more on R&D than, U.k, France, Sweden, Denmark,Russia, Australia, Israel, Canada etc.
In the U.S., two-thirds of all of its R&D is invested and performed by industrial organizations. Industries in Europe and Asia similarly support and perform between 50% and 75% of their countries’ total R&D. Industry is what drives the majority of global R&D throughout the world.
An analysis of the ICT industry reveals that global ICT R&D will increase by 5.1% in 2017 to $218.3 billion, while the U.S. component of those R&D investments will increase at a similar 5.1% to $122.2 billion in 2017.
USA technological leader in all areas except automotive, where Japan is the leader and USA runner-up. China is runner-up in Computing/IT and ICT.
INDIA’s 2017 R&D spending is expected to be $77.5 billion resulting in a global R&D total share of about 3.7%.
India has one of the largest public research systems in the world. Funding for R&D in these higher education sectors is larger than in France and nearly equals that of Japan. However, these universities are not considered world-class and have a weaker scientific and engineering publication record than other emerging economies such as Brazil, China and South Africa.
India has been very successful at attracting foreign R&D investments in a number of categories, including electronics and information technologies. Research studies found that India attracted about a third of nearly 200 engineering R&D (ER&D) centers created in 2015. The enterprises setting up these ER&D centers included the likes of Rolls-Royce, Ericsson, BASF, Bosch, Michelin, Foxconn and LeEco. India now has more than 1,000 ER&D centers.
Some aspects relevant to innovators:
1. Government will be appointing medical Device Testing Officers.
(1) The Central Government may designate a Government Analyst appointed under section 20 of the Act as Medical Device Testing Officer.
(2) The Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government, may designate an Inspector appointed under section 21 of the Act as Medical Device Officer.
2. Government to establish Medical Device Testing Laboratory.
(1) The Central Government may, by notification, establish Central medical devices testing laboratory for the purpose of,(a)testing and evaluation of medical devices; or (b)functioning as an appellate laboratory; or(c)to carry out any other function as may be specifically assigned to it.
(2) Without prejudice to sub-rule (1), the Central Government may also designate any laboratory having facility for carrying out test and evaluation of medical devices as central medical devices testing laboratory .
3. Application for registration of medical device testing laboratory:
(1) An application for grant of registration of a medical device testing laboratory to carry out
testing or evaluation of a medical device on behalf of a manufacturer shall be made to the Central Licensing Authority through online portal of the Central Government in Form MD-39 accompanied with a fee as specified in the Second Schedule along with the information specified in sub-rule (2).
The report identified a total of 19,569 published Indian patent applications and
4,052 issued Indian patents relating to mobile devices from January 2000
through February 2015. Top eleven holders of patents are all non-Indian,
based in North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.The single technology category with the greatest number of patents was
communications (12,857). Of approximately 23,500 total patents identified, a total of only eighteen
patent applications and no issued patents were held by three of the Indian
firms studied (Spice Digital, HCL and Videocon).
While absence of patenting activity in India is predicted, what surprised the authors is significant presence of software patents. 3,068 patents covered software-related features such as the
operating system, message display, searching, file management and
Finally authors refer to a possible solution - One of the
authors (Lakshané), together with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS),
have requested that the Indian government establish a patent pool covering
critical mobile technologies, and that licenses to such pool be made
available to all domestic manufacturers at a fixed royalty rate of 5% of the
end product’s net selling price. Read the open letter addressed to Indian PM.
Indian Railways plan to save 41,000 crore rupees using Integrated Rail Energy Management System. A mission statement with plan of action is a rarity in government and this is a trend setter.
Download the report.
On December 2, 2016, the Delhi High Court struck down Section 24(5) of the Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 (Act) as unconstitutional in Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd. et al. v. Registrar of Plant Varieties. During the proceeding, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the government of India, argued that Section 24(5) was necessary for the public interest. Specifically, the Solicitor General argued that this section of the Act was based on Article 13 of the International Convention for the Protection of New Plant Varieties, 1991 (UPOV), which necessitated Article 24(5) because it obligated parties to take suitable steps to safeguard the rights of applicants during the period during which their application was under evaluation.
The Court concluded stating:
“Given the importance of the Act, there is enormous danger in empowering authorities with unguided and uncanalized power through provisions that can implicate livelihoods and limit or impair food access to tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of farmers and users of plant varieties. The existence of a large section of farmers unschooled in the provisions of the Act and unaware of their rights renders unethical bioprospecting practices and spurious claims to development of new or other registrable varieties, entitled to registration, a real possibility. Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Act as cast as present may undoubtedly be an adequate remedy to prevent abusive practices (assuming that what is abusive can be defined over a period of time); yet the danger of abuse of the provision itself and the attendant (likely) long term injury to innocent breeders, framers and those in the business of development of hybrids and plant varieties far outweighs its benefits, in view of the unguided nature of the power, which is destructive of the rule of law and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, is, therefore, declared void.”
Last year China fined Qualcomm $975 million and now is the turn of South Korea. As per reportsSouth Korea’s antitrust regulator slapped a record 1.03 trillion won ($853 million) fine on Qualcomm Inc. for violating antitrust laws. Charrges: 1. Qualcomm, a holder of standard-essential patents as well as a monopolistic service provider of modem chips from manufacturing to sales, has violated its agreement to license patents on fair reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, known as FRAND. 2. Qualcomm should make standard-essential patents available for separate licensing rather than bundling them with chipset sales.