Page 24 - A&A Patents&Design Rewind-2016

GOVERNMENT IN ACTION: CALLS MEETING
WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO REDRESS IP ISSUES
Ameeting with IP stakeholders was held on
14th December, 2016 on steps taken for
improvement in processes at the Indian
Patent Office and their impact. A gamut of issues
were raised therein with a variety of suggestions
received from the stakeholders practicing various
Intellectual Property Rights. The ambit of topics 8.
was huge and also included issues pertaining to the
National Biodiversity Authority, wherein the stake-
holder, Anand and Anand in particular made some
recommendations which has everyone mulling over 9.
the issues today.
These recommendations can be accessed at
https://patentsrewind.wordpress.com/2016/12/20/
national-biodiversity-act-issues-and-recommenda-
tions/
Some of the issues discussed during the meeting
include:
1. Pendency of applications in spite of hearing
being held.
2. Incorrect abandonment of applications.
3. Delay in updation of file wrappers on the
website of the Patent Office and inclusion of
communication exchanged through e-mail in
the file wrapper.
4. Contemplation of a private file wrapper for
access to Applicants prior to publication of the
patent application.
5. Inconsistency in implementation of the CRI
related guidelines across the Patent Offices
and extensive rejection of ICT cases by
Delhi Patent Office based on the current CRI
guidelines necessitating keeping the guidelines
in abeyance until new guidelines are issued.
6. Issuance of multiple hearings particularly in
cases where the Controller responsible is
24 | Patents & Design
transferred.
7. Inconvenience of the video-conferencing mode
of hearing for applicants not represented by
Patent Agents.
Prolonged inactivity of the Intellectual Property
Appellate Board for want of appointment of
members.
Lack of timelines for grant of patent applications
post placing the application in order for grant.
10. Abuse of the pre-grant opposition procedure.
11. Failure to comply with the Patents
(Amendment) Rules 2016, particularly in
the time line for examination of divisional
applications and amended cases.
12. Lack of rationale for referring applications to
the Department of Atomic Energy and lack of
a hearing before said reference.
13. Increased rejection of cases on monoclonal
antibodies by the Chennai Patent Office
on grounds of section 3(c) even though
monoclonal antibodies are clearly patentable.
14. Waiver of fees for sequence listing.
15. Complicated format for filing working
statements.
16. Need for issuance of hearing notices well in
advance of the hearing date.
17. Expedited examination of technologies that
have a very short commercial life.
18. Retrospective allowance of permission for filing
outside India in cases which involve inventors
who are Indian residents.