Draft CRI Guidelines 2025- Version 2.0

 

Version 2.0 introduces detailed examination guidance on inventions related to: AI / ML / DL, Quantum Computing and Blockchain Technology.

Download draft-Draft_CRI_Guidelines_2025_v2.0.pdf

Indian patents 2022

 

WIPO released statistics for 2022.

Indian patent office received 77,068 applications, 38,551 from residents and 38,517 from non-residents, more than Germany, the UK, France, Russia Australia, and Canada but less than China, USA, Japan, and Korea. Patents in force are 1,28,663 with non-residents share at 81.60% and most of them are in force for more than 10 years,

Report: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-941-2023-en-world-intellectual-property-indicators-2023.pdf

FDI in R&D in India-Reji K. Joseph, Biswajit Dhar & Akoijam Amitkumar Singh

How much foreign direct investment is taking place in R&D in India? 
MNCs using Indian talent for research but innovation comes out of development in other countries!!!
Is DSIR recognition relevant?

Interesting aspects highlighed in this paper.
1.RDFDI inflows into India during the period of analysis (2004-16)  was Rs. 54862.6 Mn. This constitutes 0.4 per cent of total FDI inflows into India.
2. RDFDI was concentrated in four sectors—ICT, natural sciences and engineering (NSE), pharmaceuticals and clinical research, which accounted for more than 80 per cent of total RDFDI.
3. Only one‐fourth of RDFDI has come to DSIR recognised firms. None of the firms in the ICT sector, which received the maximum RDFDI inflows, has DSIR recognised in‐house R&D units.
4.The share of FDI companies in corporate sector R&D is only 3 per cent.
5. Data collected from USPTO on number of patents granted in which India is an inventor country and assignee country shows that there is a growing trend of companies based in foreign countries taking patent on the outputs of R&D conducted in India. Since 2002, there has been a steady decline in the share of India based inventions receiving India as the assignee country status. Of late, only 15 per cent of the patents granted by USPTO in which India is mentioned as an inventor country, having India as the assignee country; this share was 58 per cent in 2002. 

Who owns patents in Mobile Devices in India

The report `PATENTS AND MOBILE DEVICES IN INDIA: AN EMPIRICAL SURVEY by Jorge L. Contreras and Rohini Lakshané' provides useful data. Highlights:

• 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 ringtone management. 
• 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.

New Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions (CRIs)

In August 2015 Indian Patent Office Patent Office released guidelines for CRIs and these were opposed by iSPIRIT and others. In Feb 2016 Patent office came out with revised guidelines.
The main Difference:
1. August 2015 guidelines has illustrated examples of claims which are patentable, where as Feb 2016 guidelines completely dropped the list.
2. The August guidelines carry a checklist on what is not excluded under section 3(k) of the patent act taking a liberal view of technical contribution. The February guidelines restated the known position leaving it to interpretation of examiner.

While there is no ambiguity of computer program, which is not patentable in India, the ambiguity is about combined software and hardware invention.When the technical contribution is on a process which is carried on outside computer, patents were allowed. Expanding the non-exclusive list to computer programmes making the computer a better computer is opposed and dropped.

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

Indian Patent Office Rejects Pfizer’s Patent for Tofacitinib

Pfizer Products, Inc. (Pfizer) filed Indian patent application 991/MUMNP/2003 (‘991 application) entitled “Chiral Salt Resolution” in the Indian Patent Office (IPO) on October 27, 2003. The ‘991 application is a national phase application of WO 02/096909 (PCT/IB02/01905) filed on May 29, 2002. WO 02/096909 claims priority to U.S. application no. 60/294,775 filed on May 31, 2001 and U.S. application no. 60/341,048 filed on December 6, 2001.The closest prior art, WO 01/42246 (D1), also owned by Pfizer, was filed on November 23, 2000 and published on June 14, 2001. D1 claims priority to U.S. application no. 60/170,179 filed on December 10, 1999.

September 3, 2015 Decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (Assistant Controller)

Regarding the novelty rejection, the Assistant Controller rejected Pfizer’s argument that D1 was not prior art. Specifically, the Assistant Controller referred to Section 13(1)(b) which refers to “anticipation by prior claiming” and states that “the invention is claimed in any claim of any other complete specification published on or after the date of filing of the applicant’s complete specification, being a specification filed in pursuance of an application for a patent made in India and date before or claiming the priority date earlier than that date”. The Assistant Controller noted that for the purpose of determining novelty, an application for a patent filed in the Indian Patent Office before the filing date of a complete specification of a later filed application but published later, is prior art for the purposes of “prior claiming”.

Source: bricwallblog

National Patent Drafting Competition (NPDC)

IIPRD, along with Sughrue Mion and Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys (K&K), is conducting a National Patent Drafting Competition (NPDC) to enhance the appreciation and awareness levels of Patent Preparation as a Skill-Set for IP Professionals, especially in the current and forthcoming times where Patent Litigation is on the rise and interpretation of claims and specification/embodiments is going to a play a critical role.

Step 1: On 1'st September 2015, IIPRD and K&K, on their websites (www.iiprd.com and www.khuranaandkhurana.com), would put forth Three Invention Disclosures (describing three Inventions), one each in the domain of Electronics/ Hi-Tech, Mechanical, and Chemistry/Pharmaceuticals. The Patent Drafing Competition would be active till 20'th September 2015, within which timeframe, Eligible Participants would need to write Complete Patent Applications/Specifications (along with Drawings, if applicable) complying with Indian Patent Act for a technical domain of their choice (1 Patent Application per Participant).

Details: http://www.iiprd.com/National_Drafting_Competition.php

PCT Applications 2015 and India

Some interesting bits from the report.:

• Applications filed in 2014-214,500. National phase entries in 2013-565,500/-
• Two of the top three applicants were located in China. With 3,442 applications published, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. of China became the top PCT applicant. For the first time, over 10% of the top 50 PCT applicants were from China.
• Computer technology became the field with the highest number of PCT applications published (17,653) in 2014. It was followed by digital communication (16,165) and electrical machinery (15,220). Relative Specialization Index for India is highest in Pharmaceuticals.
• Philips, Netherlands top the list of 50 PCT applicants (1995-2014).
• From India, 1394 PCT applications were filed in 2014,little lower than Israel and higher than Singapore. China filed over 25,000/-
• PCT applications as a share of resident applications for India was 0.13 implying that only 13% of those that filed for patents in India in 2013 filed for PCT in 2014. Israel, Singapore have conversion more than one reflecting numerous PCT applications with no prior residence filing.
• Share of independent innovators is significant for middle income countries with Russia and South Africa leading in this classification.
• Share of PCT applications with foreign co-applicant is relatively higher for India compared to China.
• National Phase entries in India were 27,592 in 2013, higher than Brazil, Russia, South Africa.  Approximately 30% (1,176) of all NPEs originating in India were destined for the USPTO with 452 heading towards Europe.