Using Inventions in the Public Domain- WTO guide

Developing New Products- there are millions of patents free to use in India. That is knowledge on tap.

Information and knowledge in published patents and patent applications plus other public domain knowledge can be utilized to help conceive, refine and/or formalize a concept for a product, protect the idea for a product and map its path to commercial viability.
This guide is organized in three distinct modules that review and explore the applicability of information from inventions in the public domain. The modules are as follows:
MODULE I Review of the public domain as a function of geography and time, with a focus on: (1) the public domain in developing and least developed countries and (2) the relationship between patents and the public domain.
MODULE II Exploration of public domain knowledge in patents, the relationship between patents and other intellectual property rights, and using the insights gained to find opportunities to leverage existing inventions and public domain knowledge for facilitating business success.
MODULE III Using and integrating public domain knowledge in product development processes from an idea’s conception to its analysis, design, testing, market launch and post-launch analysis for continuous improvement.
Download the guide.

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