EFTA-India Free Trade Agreement and Patents Rules Amendment: Compromising Public Accountability and Transparency in the Indian Patent System

 Recently, India and a group of 4 European countries- Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland (EFTA) signed a Trade Economic Partnership Agreement (TEPA) on a variety of trade related issues, including intellectual property rights. Significantly, the agreement requires India to make substantive changes to its provision obligating a patent applicant to furnish information about their foreign applications corresponding to their application in India. 

 Weakening Section 8 risks patent quality, discourages accurate disclosure of information about the relevant foreign applications, harming consumers.

Hence, it is crucial for us to reconsider the patent rules, taking into account the altered circumstances brought about by the TEPA agreement, which introduces Section 25(1)(h) as an opposition ground and necessitates enabling an active implementation of Section 64(1)(m). Our recommendation is to amend Rule 12, to include a sworn affidavit that all foreign patent prosecutions and their statuses, as updated to the patent office, are conclusive and comprehensive to the best of the knowledge of inventors and right holders. A rule can be introduced, whereby giving false or suppressing information under the affidavit could attract unliquidated damages for loss of time and resources of the patent office. This will ensure that if the company was aware of certain foreign patent proceedings but failed to disclose them to the Patent Office, a mental element can be assumed through an affidavit by default.

It’s crucial to uphold the safety net established by the pioneers of our patent law to balance the rights of the holder with the public’s interests. This is especially vital as technology advances rapidly while the law struggles to keep up.

(source: spicyip- https://spicyip.com/2024/04/efta-india-free-trade-agreement-and-patents-rules-amendment-compromising-public-accountability-and-transparency-in-the-indian-patent-system.html

Patents 2020

WIPO report analyzes IP activity around the globe. Drawing on 2020 filing, registration and renewals statistics from national and regional IP offices. India received 56,771 patent applications, ot of which 23,141 were from India, 10,478 from USA, 4826 from Japan, 3775 from China, 2682 from Korea and 2525 from Japan.Resident grants for India grew by 5.5% whereas that of non-residents grew at 6.3%. Non-Resident share of patents granted by Indian Patent Office were pegged at 81.1%. The situation was different for Industrial Designs where out of 12,793, resident applicants were 8962 and non-residents 3,831.India does not grant utility patents and is not a member of International Union for Protection of New Variety of Plants. Publishing industry data covered under Creative Economy do not have Indian data.

Trade secret dispute between LG Chem and SK Innovation - Lithium Ion Battery

LG Chem’s petition to ITC alleges that SK Innovation hired more than 70 key employees from LG Chem between 2016 and 2018, including dozens of engineers who were involved in the design, development and manufacture of this advanced battery technology used in electric vehicles, as well as other consumer electronics applications. LG Chem further alleges that, based on its internal audit of the company’s data and communication records, SK Innovations conspired with LG Chem employees to secretly download trade secrets prior to joining SK Innovation, solicited detailed descriptions of their work and trade secret information in resumes for employment, and contacted current LG Chem employees requesting trade secrets therefrom. The alleged scale of the misappropriation spans many years, many employees and many aspects of LG Chem’s trade secrets, from research and development of lithium ion battery technology through manufacturing, testing and sales. Using the stolen technology, LG Chem alleges, SK Innovations won a lucrative deal with Volkswagen, beating out LG Chem for that contract, with losses estimated at over $1 billion.

International Trade Commission (ITC) , on Wednesday, barred the import of batteries meant to power the new electric Ford F-150 pickup, the most popular line of vehicles in the country for four straight decades. The batteries, made by South Korean giant SK innovation (SKI), were also intended for VW’s new crossover SUV, called the ID.4, which the German carmaker has planned to make in the U.S. to compete with the Tesla Model Y. But now, both companies must find another battery.

Source: 

https://www.wiggin.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Kasdan_Cho_IAM_Trade_Secrets-1.pdf

https://themobilist.medium.com/how-two-south-korean-companies-have-managed-to-terrify-ford-vw-and-the-biden-administration-2d498ae92142

Inventor Assistance Program-WIPO

Officially launched in 2016, the Inventor Assistance Program aims to level the playing field for inventors who have great ideas but struggle to secure patents due to a lack of funds. The WIPO-led public-private partnership helps these inventors get professional support from patent experts who offer legal services at no cost to the inventors – a boost for individual innovators, as well as their countries’ economic development. This WIPO established the Inventor Assistance Program to level the playing field for under-resourced inventors in developing countries by pairing them with a specialist to help draft and prosecute their patent applications.

Volunteers provide free assistance before the inventor’s local patent office and in selected jurisdictions. The program operates in five countries today: Ecuador, Colombia, Morocco, the Philippines, and South Africa. For the inventors wishing to protect their invention at the international level, the IAP also provides support for the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) national and regional phase entry in the United States of America and in Europe. The program plans to expand to Japan in the near future.

Already, the IAP has helped 39 inventors. So far, five patents have been granted in Colombia. The covered inventions include a device that stabilizes vehicles on wet, muddy roads, specialized kitchen equipment to cook lasagna, a machine that helps the visually impaired distinguish coins, modular furniture and an automated car covering by inventor Ivan Rizo.

Source: WIPO

World Intellectual Property Indicators 2018 : creative economy

Applicants around the world filed almost 3.17 million patent applications in 2017. From 1883 to 1963, the patent office of the U.S. was the leading office for world filings. Application numbers in Japan and the U.S. were stable until the early 1970s, when Japan began to see rapid growth – a pattern also observed for the U.S. from the 1980s onward. Among the top five offices, Japan surpassed the U.S. in 1968 and maintained the top position until 2005. Since the early 2000s, however, the number of applications filed in Japan has followed a downward trend. Both the EPO and the Republic of Korea have seen increases each year since the early 1980s, as has China since 1995. China surpassed the EPO and the Republic of Korea in 2005, Japan in 2010 and the U.S. in 2011 – and it now receives the largest number of applications worldwide. Applicants from China filed around 1.31 million equivalent patent applications in 2017, which is more than the combined total for applicants from Japan (460,660), the Republic of Korea (226,568) and the U.S. (524,835). Those four origins, plus Germany (176,235), accounted for the bulk of the global total. However, it should be noted that only 4.6% of all applications from China are filed abroad, while 95.4% are filed in China. In contrast, filings abroad constitute 43.5% of total applications from Japan and 44% from the U.S.
In 2017, an estimated 1.4 million patents were granted worldwide, up 3.9% on 2016 figures, and represent 17 consecutive years of growth (see figure 1.7). China (420,144) issued the largest number of patents in 2017, followed by the U.S. (318,829), Japan (199,577), the Republic of Korea (120,662) and the EPO (105,645). These five offices issued more than 1.16 million patents between them – 83% of the world total.  India granted 50.2% more patents in 2017 than in 2016, with grants increasing from 8,248 in 2016 to 12,387 in 2017. Non-resident grants accounted for 85% of the total increase.

Applicants from China were the most active applicants in the world in 2017, filing 4,041 plant variety applications. This represents a 48.6% growth in filing activity for Chinese applicants – the fastest growth among the top 10 origins. They were followed by applicants from the Netherlands, who filed 3,320 applications. The U.S. (2,084), France (1,068) and Germany (865) were ranked third, fourth and fifth largest origins, respectively.
Creative Economy:  Data on the 2017 revenues generated by the three sectors – trade, educational and STM – are available for 11 countries. Those 11 countries generated USD 248 billion revenue in 2017. China (USD 202.4 billion) reported the largest net revenue, followed by the United States of America (U.S.) (USD 25.9 billion), Germany (USD 5.8 billion) and the United Kingdom (U.K.) (USD 4.7 billion)
(source: WIPO)

Are there patents in 1st Industrial Revolution? (IS INDIA READY FOR 4TH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION-PART2)

I raised this query in my bog post dated 19^th February 2018 and VK Varun, Scientist from DSIR, Ministry of Science & Technology commented  

During First Industrial Resolution, As per USPTO, 4695 patents were granted during 01/Jan/1790 to 31/12/1840 and its distribution is as follows:

1790-1800 [117]; 1801-1810 [084]; 1811-1820 [177]; 1821-1830 [595]; and 1831-1840 [3722].

Thank u Varun. There were indeed many patents and this was discussed in the working paper: Patents and the first industrial revolution in

the US,France and Britain, 1700-1850 by Sean Bottomley.

Some interesting aspects:

Between 1660-1760, few patents were awarded in England; it was unusual for more than a dozen to be granted in any one year. number of patents increases rapidly so that in 1800, 96 patents were awarded and in 1850, 513. Out of 72 'superstar' inventors born between 1660 and 1830, 81% obtained at least one patent in the course of their careers. 

Patent agents appeared in the third quarter of the eighteenth century. Agents offered an extremely valuable service; by 1849, virtually all inventors employed an agent (even if they resided in the capital). 

International patents: In the 1820s, Britons obtained, at the very least, 170 patents in France (6.3 %) of the total awarded) and in the 1830s, 415 (7%)  of the total awarded. Henry Bessemer worked on the problem of manufacturing cheap steel for ordnance production from 1850 to 1855 when he patented his method. He sold an exclusive licence to the Spanish  for his steel converter for £5,000. 

Patent infringement: Work on patent cases in the Court of Chancery between 1714 and 1758, shows that there were, at the very least, forty one cases instigated by patentees. The Court of Chancery offered patentees a variety of legal remedies – most importantly, injunctions.

Patent licensing : Between 1770 and 1845, around 30 percent of English patents were assigned in full and another 25 percent were either assigned in part and/or licensed as well. Many inventors licensed their patent. By selling a portion of the patent as part of a partnership agreement, inventors could obtain access to manufacturing plant and/or capital. Without sufficient capital, it is difficult to turn an invention to profit.

Many inventors made money : silk-winding machinery patented by Thomas Lombe in 1718 and worked in partnership with his half-brother John and his cousin William. Over the course of the patent term (1718-1732,  Thomas made £80,000, and when he died in 1739, he was able to leave his family £120,000, a colossal fortune by the standards of the day.

All inventors did not make money : there were many inventors during the industrial revolution who failed to reap any rewards from their endeavours and ended their days in poverty – John Kay, James Hargreaves and Richard Trevithick to name but three. Moreover, Kay, Hargreaves and Trevithick all chose to patent their most important inventions (respectively, the flying shuttle, the spinning jenny and the first high-pressure steam locomotive), but to no avail.

Patenting is not a new subject, only we cannot continue to ignore them for 4th industrial revolution too. in Part 3 we will discuss about pitfalls of leap-frogging.

Licences DPI de brevet, commercialisation de la technologie, marketing de l'innovation: Première partie, principes fondamentaux des DPI (French Edition)

Inventor and author Majid EI Bouazzaoui translatied into the French language and adaptation to Moroccan law, the first part " Basic principles of intellectual property rights (Ipr) " of the Indian book " Patent Licensing, commercialization of technology, marketing of Innovation "...

It is a unique book that goes around the topic and presents the basic principles of intellectual property law (Ipr), analyses the weaknesses of the law in the face of accelerated technology and economic development; and Even offers solutions.

This is really a reference book that must exist in every home and be reread as often as possible. I recommend it to students, professors, scientists, Phd students, engineers, inventors, entrepreneurs, policymakers, politicians, etc.

Order on Amazon.

Book Summery

Patent IPR Licensing-

Technology Commercialisation-

Innovation Marketing

This is a guide book for researchers and innovators from IFIA member, Indian Innovators Association. The Author in his long association with innovators noticed that more often benefits from creative endeavor elude the researcher/ engineer. The point of vexation arises when they notice that there are no buyers for their innovation.

One remedy for this heart burning experience is to start preparation for commercialization early in the development phase with clarity on the fundamentals of relevant market. The market is different for Patent license, Technology Commercialization and Innovation. Understanding characteristics of the market you are jumping into is a pre-requisite for non-business savvy innovator. This guide book takes the reader to each of these markets giving a basic view of each market.

Message from Alireza RASTEGAR, IFIA President:

Intellectual Property protection, licensing, commercialization and innovation marketing are the required steps for developing an innovative idea into a marketable product. Having knowledge about these concepts ensured the successful exploitation of the innovative technologies in the industrial sectors.

The community of idea owners needs to know how to prepare a well-drafted patent application, generate wealth from the patent, create physical products to help the brand

thrive and license their patents without the need to write a business plan, develop a marketing strategy, spend money on advertising, or find distribution.

Thanks to the efforts made by the Indian Innovator Association, IFIA Full member and representative in India, such information has become available. The inventors and innovators all around the world are encouraged to benefit from the wealth of knowledge

included in the book "PATENT LICENSING TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALISATION INNOVATION MARKETING" and become familiar with a variety of new concepts.

The book is available at , Flipkart, Amazon, Kindle, iBook, Google Play etc.

Patent IPR Licensing- Technology Commercialisation – Innovation Marketing : Guide Book for Researchers, Innovators

My new book:
The guide book by Indian Innovators Association will help researchers and innovators to clearly understand the difference between patent licensing, technology commercialization and innovation marketing. Everything is important but each one is different. Intellectual property is a common thread and the reader is taken through the fundamentals of IPR before explaining each of the three. topics.

Available at:
Flipkart
Amazon
infibeam
notionpress

Trade Mark rules 2017

New rules have notified. Some aspects:

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.

Source: SELVAM&SELVAM

The Scheme for Facilitating Start-ups Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP)

The Scheme of SIPP aims to promote awareness and adoption of Intellectual Property Rights amongst Start-Ups. Scheme is inclined to nurture and mentor innovative and emerging technologies among Start-ups and assist them in protecting and commercializing Intellectual Property Rights by providing them access to high-quality IP services and resources. For the purpose of facilitating the Start-ups and giving them assistance while getting their Intellectual Property registered in India, the Controller General of Patents, Design and Trademarks (CGPDTM) also appoints a panel of Facilitators. 

The Facilitators would perform the below mentioned functions-

• Providing general and basic advice to the Start-ups with respect to different Intellectual Properties.
• Providing information regarding protecting and promoting IPRs in different countries.
• Providing assistance and guidance in filing the applications for registration of Intellectual Properties like Trademarks, Patents and Designs and disposal of the same at the Indian Offices under the CGPDTM.
• Drafting Specifications, Claims, response to Examination Reports/Queries etc.
• Attending hearing on behalf of Start-ups.
• Contesting third-party Oppositions.
• Ensuring disposal of the IPR applications.

The Facilitators are not allowed to charge anything from the Start-ups for the services provided by them. Further, the Facilitators will be provided with a fixed amount of fee by the Central Government and it will not be entitled to charge any amount apart from that to the Entrepreneur.

The facilitator would get Rs 15,000/- at the time of filing, another 15,000/- at the time of final disposal.

Source: mondaq

Intellectual property rights and firm performance in Europe: an economic analysis

This study was based on available observations of 132 277 firms. IPR owners’ is defined as firms that owned at least one patent, trade mark or design, or any combination thereof. The groups of ‘ Patent owners, ‘ Trade mark owners’ and ‘ Design owners’ are defined as firms that owned at least one of the particular IPRs. Since many firms owned combinations of the three IPRs, the owners of the various IPRs overlap. The dataset was constructed in such a way that of the companies examined, about half, or 63 288,have at least one patent, trade mark or design in their portfolio.

While the majority of SMEs in Europe do not own IPRs, those that do own IPRs have significantly higher revenue per employee. In the case of large companies, revenue per employee is 4 per cent higher for IP owners than for non-owners. Here the analysis shows that 4 out of 10 large companies in Europe own IPRs, but the association with higher

revenue per employee is less pronounced than in the case of SMEs.

Download the report.

Lessons from the Chinese patenting system

Peter K. Yu, Drake University Law School, in his paper `

Building the Ladder: Three Decades of Development of the Chinese Patent System' traces the development of the modern Chinese patent system. It begins with a historical overview of the protection China offered to inventions during the dynastic and Republican eras. The article then identifies five different stages of development of the modern Chinese patent system. Going from stage to stage, this article demonstrates how a developing country could strategically build a patent system that is tailored to its own social, economic and technological conditions. The article concludes with five key lessons China's patent reform can provide to other developing countries.

Five Lessons:

First, a one-size-fits-all model does not work well at the global level, and retaining policy space is essential to the successful development of a country’s patent system. As commentators have widely noted, overprotecting intellectual property rights can harm a country as much as under-protecting them. While policy makers and industry leaders from intellectual property-exporting countries are eager to offer policy advice on how best to improve the patent system, policy makers from developing countries should pay close attention to their countries’ local needs, national interests, technological capabilities, institutional capacities and public health conditions.

Secondly, and relatedly, countries should maximise the flexibilities available in the existing international patent system.To be certain, the policy space available under today’s system is much more limited than what was available in the system’s early days.countries could still decide whether they want to promote the development of utility models, prohibit patent grants on second indications or introduce public interest exceptions into their laws.They

could also explore the use of alternative models to generate incentives for inventors.

Thirdly, countries that dare to develop their patent system at different paces or in different directions than what major intellectual property-exporting countries expect will likely be heavily criticised as pirating nations, or even “rogue” players in the international intellectual property community.

Fourthly, there seems to be a “crossover point” at which countries go from a pirating nation to a nation respectful of patent rights.Such crossover took place in many once-developing countries, including the United States, Germany, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.

Finally, there is no quick and easy solution to the massive piracy problems confronting developing countries. It took developed countries centuries to develop their patent system to its current stage.

Patentable Subject Matter

Visit to USA by PM Modi is followed by news/ views on Indian IPR policy. It is time to learn more.
Lisa Mueller is a partner in Michael Best’s Intellectual Property Practice Group and the chair of the Life Sciences and Chemical Practice Group. Ms. Mueller has extensive experience in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical areas. For 10 years, she has worked closely on-site with in-house legal departments of international pharmaceutical companies, handling a variety of patent and freedom-to-operate matters, providing training to new in-house counsel and meeting with scientists and other personnel regarding various other intellectual property matters. 
Mueller addressed the thorny issue of Patentable Subject matter in a 10 part blog. Part 1 covers USA, Part 2 Canada, Part 3 India, Part 4 Russia, Part 5 Brazil, Part 6 Europe, Part 7 China, Part 8 Australia, Part 9 South Africa  and Part 10-Japan..

India's first Intellectual Property Rights Helpline‏

India’s first IPR helpline is offered by Inolyst. You can clear all your doubts on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights with our experts, free of cost!  Call 080 - 3927 5503 -