The Nuts and Bolts of Foreign Filing Licence (FFL) In India

Like any other IP right, a patent is also a jurisdictional right confined to the jurisdiction where the application is filed, and the rights granted. A patent is also considered a negative right, which enables the patentee to prohibit others from manufacturing, using, selling, and distributing the patented goods and services. If the invention is not protected in a specific jurisdiction, it can be used by any third party without restrictions. Hence, the applicants must choose jurisdictions carefully to safeguard their inventions in those countries.

Given that a patent is a valuable asset that can aid international business expansion, businesses must develop a foreign filing strategy. The strategy could be based on specific parameters like potential markets, manufacturing centres, competitors, emerging markets, and licencing opportunities to decide where to seek protection for their invention.

Apart from the specific parameters outlined above, the applicant must be aware of particular provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, which forbid Indian residents from filing patent applications outside India without first filing in India.

It is pertinent to note that, as an exception, a patent application can be directly filed outside India by an individual (Indian Resident) by seeking prior approval from the Indian Patent Office. This is referred to as a Foreign Filing Licence (FFL), as envisaged under Section 39 of the Indian Patent Act, 1970.

 

What is the objective of providing the option of a Foreign Filing Licence?

The primary objective of FFL is to analyse patent applications for sensitive technological information or subject matter to prevent the unauthorised export of valuable knowledge to foreign countries. The FFL assists the Indian Patent Office/government in determining the patent application’s sensitive subject matter (pertaining to defence or atomic energy). Once it is ascertained that there are no issues with disclosing the details of the invention to a foreign country, the Indian Patent Office usually grants the Foreign Filing Licence within 21 days of receiving the request.

When the applicant is not required to seek a Foreign Filing Licence
  • When the applicant is not a resident of India, and the invention was created outside of the country.
  • If the applicant is a resident of India who filed a patent application in India six weeks before filing a patent application in another jurisdiction.
When the applicant is required to seek a Foreign Filing Licence
  • When the applicant or inventor is a resident of India.
  • When the applicant does not wish to file a patent application in India before filing a patent application outside of India.
  • When the applicant is a resident of India, a patent application has been filed in India, but the six-week term has not yet expired.

It is important to note that if the invention is related to nuclear energy or defence, the Indian Patent Office may not issue the FFL without the prior consent of the Central Government.

 

Statutory provisions governing Foreign Filing Licence in India

Rule 71 of the Patent Rules, 2003 describes the procedure and mandates seeking permission to file a patent application outside India.  

Rule 71: Permission for filing patent applications outside India under section 39.

“(1) The request for permission to submit a patent application outside India shall be made on Form 25.

(2) The Controller must respond to a request made under sub-rule (1) within twenty-one days of the request being filed.

Provided that in the case of inventions relating to defence or atomic energy, the period of twenty-one days shall be counted from the date of receipt of consent from the Central Government.”

 

Requirements for Seeking a Foreign Filing Licence

Since the main objective of FFL is to examine the nature of inventions and technologies in the nation’s best interest, an applicant must sufficiently disclose the invention’s details, including the title, description, and drawings (if any). In addition to the above information, the applicant must submit the following forms with all required data.

Form-25[1]: to request permission to make a patent application outside India. Form 25 must include:

  • Title of the invention
  • Name, address, and nationality of inventors who are “resident in India,”
  • Name and address of the applicant if rights have been assigned to the applicant.
  • Names of foreign countries where the application will be submitted once the Foreign Filing Licence is issued.
  • Reason for making such an application.

Form-26[2]: Power of Attorney (POA) from the inventor(s) or applicant residing in India and appointing a patent agent to represent them.

 

Can a Foreign National Apply for a Patent in India?

As outlined above, an Indian Foreign Filing Licence is not applicable for foreign nationals filing a patent application in India. A foreign national may apply for a patent in India by following one of the two routes mentioned below:

  1. Paris Convention Route: Under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property, a foreign national of a convention country can use the convention route to file a patent application in India. Any invention filed in their home country may also be filed for patent protection in India within 12 months by claiming priority from the earliest filed application in their home country.
  1. Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Route: A foreign national may also file a patent application in India under the PCT route.

However, if they intend to file a patent application directly in India, they must follow their country’s patent law to confirm if there is a similar requirement in their jurisdiction.

Even though FFL enables Indian residents to file patent applications directly in a foreign country without filing the first application in India, inventors and the applicants (who are Indian residents) must strictly comply with the requirements of the FFL discussed above to avoid serious consequences, including imprisonment for a term of up to two years, or a fine, or both.

Even though Foreign Filing Licence (FFL) enables Indian residents to file patent applications directly in a foreign country without filing the first application in India, inventors and the applicants (who are Indian residents) must strictly comply with the requirements of the FFL discussed above to avoid serious consequences, including imprisonment for a term of up to two years, or a fine, or both.

POST A COMMENT

Anticipation of Invention: Patent and Latent Threats

A patent is representative of a quid pro quo arrangement and on the basis thereof patentees are granted a monopoly over their inventions. However, the process of securing such a monopoly can be complicated by ‘anticipation.’ Any invention anticipated in a prior art is most likely to be invalidated or made ineligible for a patent grant. This is because anticipation signifies a lack of ‘novelty’ in the claimed patent.

The concept of anticipation varies across jurisdictions, generally differing on the offering of the grace period. For instance, in the US a one-year grace period is provided to an individual for filing a disclosure in the event of obtaining the confidential subject matter of the invention directly or indirectly by the inventor or the joint inventor. Here, the principle of relative novelty governs the consideration of anticipation. Whereas in Europe, only a six-month grace period is provided, only in cases where the information is obtained by deceit or has been made public through an official international exhibition.

The law in India has taken an alternative route. The Indian Patent Act, of 1970 has identified conditions in which the grace period is afforded to evaluate anticipation. The Act defines what does not constitute anticipation under sections 29-34.

This article aims to provide the reader with a better understanding of the concept of anticipation under the Indian Patent Act, 1970.

 

What Amounts to Anticipation for Patents in India?

 

As highlighted above, the term anticipation is not defined in the Indian Patent Act,1970 however, the Act specifies what is not considered anticipation under Chapter VI, Section 29-34.

In the case of M. C. Jayasingh vs Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited,[1] the Madras High Court while examining the provisions pertaining to “Anticipation” under the Indian Patents Act 1970, observed inter alia, “Though Section 13(1) refers repeatedly to “anticipation”, the expression “anticipation” is not defined in the Act. But, Chapter VI, containing Sections 29 to 32, deals with anticipation by previous publication. Here again, there is an element of confusion. Sections 29 to 32 do not stipulate as to what constitutes anticipation by publication. Rather, these sections merely point out what would not constitute anticipation. While Section 29 indicates what is not anticipation by previous publication, Section 30 indicates that a mere communication of the invention to the Government may not constitute anticipation. Similarly, Section 31 indicates when a public display would not constitute anticipation, and Section 32 indicates when the public working of a patent would not constitute anticipation.”

The Court proceeded to observe that a conclusive meaning of anticipation could be deciphered by examining the expression “new invention” under section 2(1)(l). Hence, the anticipation by publication would simply mean “that the subject matter had either fallen into the public domain or had become part of the state of the art.” This understanding of anticipation is further circumscribed by the exclusions mentioned under Sections 29 to 32.

It is pertinent to note that the concept of anticipation does not necessarily prevent an inventor from doing something purely because it would be an obvious/anticipated extension of what had been known in the art before the priority date. It rather demands a deep deliberation and analysis of what would have been obvious or already in use at the priority date to an individual skilled in the art who had access to what was known in the art at that date.

Anticipation by Previous Publication (Section 29)

 

This section provides that any publication of the invention made in India or abroad without the prior consent of the applicant or patentee is not considered anticipation and the ground for rejection of the patent. The patentee must establish that he filed an application for the patent as soon as he found out about the publication. This section does not mention about the time period of filling the application after such a publication.

The law on anticipation by prior publication has been summarised by Sachs LJ in the case of General Tire & Rubber Company v. The Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Limited And Others,[2] as, “If the prior publication contained a clear description of, or clear instructions to do or make, something that would infringe the patentee’s claim if carried out after grant of the patentee’s patent, the claim would be anticipated. If, on the other hand, the prior publication contained a direction which was capable of being carried out in a manner which would infringe but would be at least as likely to be carried out in a way which would not do so, the patentee’s claim would not be anticipated, although it might fail on the ground of obviousness. To anticipate the claim, the prior publication had to contain clear and unmistakable direction to do what the patentee claimed to have invented.”

 

Anticipation by Previous Communication to the Government (Section 30)

 

Any disclosure of the invention to the government prior to the filing date of a patent application for the purpose of the investigation is not considered anticipation.

Moreover, in Shogun Organics Ltd. Vs. Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors[3], the Delhi High Court clarified that the language of Section 30 now makes it clear that the disclosure to a government department or to any other authority, not just of the patentee, but by any other person, would not constitute prior publication. The language is person-neutral. It cannot be said from a reading of the provision that only disclosure by the patentee/applicant is covered under Section 30. 

 

Anticipation by Public Display (Section 31)

 

 An invention that has been displayed or published publicly is not eligible to be patented on the account of lacking novelty. However, under certain circumstances, a publicly displayed patent can be considered ‘novel’ in the following cases:

  1. The display or use of invention at an industrial or other exhibition is notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette;
  2. Publication of any description or portion thereof as a result of the exhibition’s display or use of the invention;
  3. Usage of the invention by anyone, after the aforesaid display in exhibition, other than the inventor or a person deriving title from him; and
  4. Description of the invention in a paper read by the inventor before a learned society.

It is important to note that, an application for a patent can only be granted in the abovementioned circumstances if it is filed within 12 months of such public display/publication.

In Ralph M. Parsons Co (Beavon’s) Application[4], it was observed that learned societies would disseminate the relevant learning without consideration of economic gain. Thus, a learned society would normally be a non-commercial body of people and would not typically be associated with commercial exploitation. For a publication to be regarded as a “transaction” of a learned society, it must be published under the auspices of and finally be the responsibility of the learned society. Therefore, a publication that occurs via a third party, such as a reporter who is present at the conference, would not be regarded as a publication by society. Moreover, the publication by a society of an abstract of a paper is considered to be a publication of a paper.[5]

 

Anticipation by Public Working (Section 32)

 

An invention filed in a patent application is not considered to be anticipated due to the working of the invention in public by the patentee or person deriving title from him or any person authorized by him, subject to the meeting of the following criteria:

  1. The working of the invention should not be public prior to 1 year from the date of filing of the patent application; and
  2. The working of the invention in public is performed for the purpose of reasonable trial.
  3. The nature of the invention needs the invention to be worked in public.

Hence, the 12 months time period mentioned in the provision can be regarded as the ‘grace period’ for the inventor to file an application for the grant of the patent after public use. This is an opportunity for the inventor to apply for the grant of patent in an event of him mistakenly or in good faith using the invention in the public domain.

It is pertinent to note that, the section draws a significant distinction between public use and mere public publication.

In the case of Poysha Industries Ltd v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs[6], the Calcutta High Court adjudicated upon the issue of distinction between public use and public knowledge. The issue was whether the invention was publicly used or publicly known in a part of India. The Appellants, in support of their contention, stated that the method used by them to crimp the top portion of the containers did not require special skills or techniques. The said containers had been supplied by the appellants to M/s Zandu Pharmaceuticals and another company since 1960. However, the appellants failed to establish that the invention was publicly used and known, hence the appeal failed.

The same has been further clarified in Monsanto Co v. Coramandal Indag Products (P) Ltd.[7] by the Supreme Court, wherein it was held that, “It is clear from the facts narrated by us that the Herbicide CP 53619 (Butachlor) was publicly known before Patent Number 125381 was granted. Its formula and use had already been made known to the public by the report of the International Rice Research Institute for the year 1968. No one claimed any patent or any other exclusive right in Butachlor. To satisfy the requirement of being publicly known as used in clauses (e) and (f) of [s 64(1)], it is not necessary that it should be widely used to the knowledge of the consumer public. It is sufficient if it is known to the persons who are engaged in the pursuit of knowledge of the patented product or process either as men of science or men of commerce or consumers. The section of the public who, as men of science or men of commerce, were interested in knowing about herbicides which would destroy weeds but not rice, must have been aware of the discovery of Butachlor. There was no secret about the active agent Butachlor as claimed by the plaintiffs since there was no patent for Butachlor, as admitted by the plaintiffs. Emulsification was the well-known and common process by which any herbicide could be used. Neither Butachlor nor the process of emulsification was capable of being claimed by the plaintiff as their exclusive property. The solvent and the emulsifier were not secrets; they were admittedly not secrets and were ordinary market products. From the beginning to the end, there was no secret and there was no invention by the plaintiffs. The ingredients, the active ingredient, the solvent and the emulsifier, were known; the process was known, the product was known, and the use was known. The plaintiffs were merely camouflaging a substance whose discovery was known throughout the world and trying to enfold it in their specification relating to Patent Number 125381. The patent is, therefore, liable to be revoked.

Therefore, for information to be publicly known, it is not essential that it should be used widely or be in the knowledge of the general public only. It would satisfy the legislative purpose if the information was known to individuals engaged in the research of the patented product or operating within the same industry or science.

 

Anticipation by Use and Publication after Provisional Specification (Section 33)

 

The objective of this section is to clarify that the information disclosed in public or the invention worked in public is not considered for anticipation between the filing of:

  1. A patent application with a provisional specification and a complete specification (within 12 months from the provisional filing); or
  2. A priority application in a convention country and a convention application in India.

This means that if the invention is used or published after the provisional application is filed, a complete specification filed later is not deemed to have been anticipated. Therefore, the Controller cannot refuse to grant a patent, revoke or invalidate it by citing that the subject matter of the provisional specification was used or published in India or in another jurisdiction at a time after the filing of said specification.

It is important to note that the provision applies only if the complete specification of the patent is filed within 12 months of the provisional specification.

Further, in cases where the complete specification has been filed in pursuance of a convention application, the Controller cannot reject the grant of patent on the grounds that the subject matter of the application was filed for protection in India within 12 months from the date of priority application filed in the convention country.

This section essentially seeks to safeguard the interests of the inventors between the periods of filing of provisional and complete specifications, and between the periods of filing the priority application in the convention country and the filing of the complete specification in India, in an event where the subject matter of the invention is placed in the public domain.

 

The Doctrine of Inherent Anticipation

 

The doctrine of inherent anticipation refers to a kind of anticipation wherein anticipation is found even in the absence of appropriate disclosure in a prior art reference.

In general, anticipation can be of two types: explicit anticipation and implicit anticipation (i.e., the doctrine of inherent anticipation). The term explicit anticipation refers to anticipation wherein each technical element disclosed in the claim is disclosed in a single prior-art document. According to the explicit anticipation, a claim is rejected by the patent office if all the technical features are found in a single prior art document. According to the doctrine of inherent anticipation (i.e., implicit anticipation), a claim is rejected by the patent office even if all the technical features are not disclosed in a single prior art subject to the presence of the missing technical features inhere in the prior art. 

Generally, there are two accepted tests to appropriately understand the doctrine of inherent anticipation. According to the first test, a check is performed to determine that the inherency of anticipation is not established only based on the probabilities or possibilities. A technical feature is considered to be inherent only if said technical feature is the “natural result flowing from” the invention description and invariably leads to the outcome. According to the second test, a check is performed to determine that an accidental or unintentional outcome, not appreciated as inherent to the claim by a person of ordinary skill in the art, does not constitute anticipation.

The IPAB in Enercon (India) Limited vs. Aloys Wobben[8] held that “patent is invalid for anticipation if a single prior art reference discloses each and every limitation of the claimed invention. The prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if that missing characteristic is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating prior art. It is not necessary that inherent anticipation requires that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have recognised the inherent disclosure. But it is necessary that the result be a necessary consequence of what was deliberately intended in the invention.”

 

Overcoming Anticipation Rejection

 

In view of the above, it is always advisable to file a patent application before placing it in the public domain. If the nature of the invention requires the invention to be placed in the public domain or worked in the public domain, the inventor(s) must ensure compliance with the requirements outlined in Section 29-30 in order to maintain the novelty of the invention and avoid patent rejection due to anticipation.

References:

[1] Civil Suit No.562 of 2007

[2] [1972] R.P.C. 457

[3] CS (COMM) 201/2017: (14.08.2019 – DELHC):MANU/DE/2598/2019: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9653:Delhi High Court

[4] [1978] FSR 226

[5] Ethyl Corporation’s Patent [1963] RPC 155

[6] AIR 1975 Cal 178

[7] AIR 1986 SC 712

[8] ORA/6/2009/PT/CH ,ORDER (No. 18 of 2013)]

 

 

Image Credits: Photo by JESHOOTS.COM on Unsplash

Anticipation can be of two types: explicit anticipation and implicit anticipation (i.e., the doctrine of inherent anticipation). The term explicit anticipation refers to anticipation wherein each technical element disclosed in the claim is disclosed in a single prior-art document. According to the explicit anticipation, a claim is rejected by the patent office if all the technical features are found in a single prior art document. According to the doctrine of inherent anticipation (i.e., implicit anticipation), a claim is rejected by the patent office even if all the technical features are not disclosed in a single prior art subject to the presence of the missing technical features inhere in the prior art. 

POST A COMMENT

Demystifying the Inventorship Rights of an AI System in India

In this age of technological advancement, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has taken a giant leap from undertaking more straightforward tasks to originating marvellous inventions. Can an AI system be considered an inventor? This question has been beguiling jurisprudence across the globe for a considerable time. However, through the recent decision of Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents, the Australian Federal Court has forced jurisdictions across the world to re-think the inventive capacity and the role of AI in the contemporary ecosystem of innovation.

Through this article, we have tried to determine the implications of the Thaler decision and examine the position of the Indian legislation on the inventorship rights of an AI.

Factual Matrix

Dr. Stephen Thaler designed the Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS). DABUS is an artificial intelligence system that pioneered the creation of an optimised beverage container and a flashing light for use in emergency circumstances. In the persistence of such a creation, Dr. Thaler filled patent applications worldwide, including in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

“The Deputy Commissioner” rejected Dr. Thaler’s patent application in Australia, which named DABUS as the inventor. The matter was contested and finally, the Federal Court of Australia determined that the AI could be recognised as an inventor under the Australian Patent Act. According to the Court, the patent would be owned by Dr. Thaler, the developer, owner, and controller of DABUS. The Court determined that the legislative intent was to encourage innovation and that nothing in the Patent Act expressly or implicitly forbids AI from being named as an inventor.

Indian Stance: Inventorship Rights of an AI

In India, recently, the Controller General of Patents recorded objections to recognising an AI as an inventor in the matter of patent application numbered 202017019068, citing the provisions under Section 2 and Section 6 of the Patents Act 1970 (“Act”). The term “inventor” has not been defined under the Act. However, Section 6 states that, among other things, a patent application can be filed by any person claiming to be the true and first inventor of an invention.[1]

A bare reading of the provisions indicates that a natural person is distinguished from others. One can also observe that anyone other than a natural person will be unable to claim inventorship. Consequently, a natural person who is true and first to invent, and who contributes his originality, skill, or technical knowledge to the innovation meets the criteria to be acknowledged as an inventor in India.

In the case of V.B. Mohammed Ibrahim v. Alfred Schafranek, AIR 1960 Mysore 173, it was held that a financing partner cannot be an inventor, nor can a corporation be the sole applicant that claims to be an inventor. The Court, through this decision, emphasised that only a natural person (who is neither a financing partner nor a corporation) who genuinely contributes their skill or technical knowledge towards the invention shall qualify to claim inventorship under the Act.

In the light of this judgement, it can be perceived that an AI can also contribute its skill or technical knowledge to an invention and become an inventor. However, a reference to Som Prakash Rekhi vs Union of India & Anr, AIR 1981 SC 212, clarifies the qualification of a legal ‘person’ under Indian law. The Supreme Court observed that ‘personality’ is the sole attribution of a legal person. Such a ‘personality’ is an entity that has the right to sue or can be sued by another entity. An AI is not capable of using such rights, nor can it perform the required duties of any juristic personality independently. For instance, it cannot enter into an agreement or transfer or acquire patent/patent application rights. It would also be impossible for an AI to oppose or revoke a patent application. Hence, an AI falls short of the standards for being deemed an inventor in India.

Furthermore, the legislative intent behind the Indian Patent Act as found in the Ayyangar Committee report of 1959[2] suggests that inventors are mentioned in a patent application as a matter of right. Whether or not the actual deviser has a proprietary claim on the innovation, he has a moral right to be acknowledged as the inventor. This confers reputation and boosts the economic worth of the inventor. The inventor may give up his ownership interest in a particular patent due to a contract/agreement in law, but he retains his moral right.

An examination of legislative purpose and current public policy reveals a desire to protect the rights of the inventor/natural person who creates IP and can use his moral rights. On the other hand, AI cannot be granted moral rights nor appear to enjoy the benefits intended by legislation or public policy. Given this, designating AI as an inventor/co-inventor under current Indian rules seems impossible until explicit revisions are made.

Role of AI and Economic Growth in India

The Parliamentary Standing Committee “(“Committee“”) constituted under the Dept. of Commerce, analysed the current landscape of the IPR regime in India and observed its contribution to promoting innovation and entrepreneurship in the country in its report titled “Report 161: Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India” presented in the Rajya Sabha on  July 23rd, 2021. In particular, it examined the challenges that exist in the current legislative structure including the inventorship rights of an AI.

The Committee acknowledged the relevance and utility of AI-based cutting edge technology and machine learning, particularly in current times, significantly affected by the pandemic, in which digital technology proved to be instrumental in responding to the global crisis. Further, the Committee placed reliance on a report released by Accenture titled “How AI Boosts Industry Profits and Innovation” which estimated AI to inject US $ 957 Billion into the Indian Economy by 2035, if used optimally, to understand further the impact and role of AI and technology in the contemporary landscape and its relationship with Intellectual Property. 

Therefore, the Committee recommended a review of the relevant provisions of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 [Section 3(k)] and the Copyrights Act, 1957 on a priority basis to afford inventorship rights to AI in India. The Report also stated that “The Committee recommends the Department that the approach in linking the mathematical methods or algorithms to a tangible technical device or a practical application should be adopted in India for facilitating their patents as being done in the EU and U.S. Hence, the conversion of mathematical methods and algorithms to a process in this way would make it easier to protect them as patents“. Thereby including algorithms and mathematical processes under the ambit of patent law.

The Committee concluded that the legislative framework amendments would protect the works of an AI (either autonomously or with assistance/inputs from a human), incentivize pioneering inventions and R&D in the country, and maintain an enabling ecosystem for the protection of human intelligence innovations. The Committee maintained that the embargo placed on the inventorship rights of an AI would dissuade significant investments in the sector since such AI induced innovations would not be protected in the country.

Conclusion:  A Way Forward for Inventorship Rights of an AI System 

The decision would have a favourable impact on the holder of an AI. However, commentators have expressed concerns regarding the difficulties that may arise due to the extending of patent protection to AI-generated concepts, such as:

  • Impact on the Copyright law: A result of such a decision may lead the courts to re-examine the subject of AI authorship and regard AI as a creator of AI-generated works, which will open a Pandora’s box of judicial conflicts.[3]
  • It could potentially raise the bar for innovation or fundamentally alter the definition of a ‘person skilled in the art,’ making it more difficult for human innovators to obtain patent protection.
  • Accepting inventorship to include AI systems would elevate AI to the status of a legal person, allowing it to hold and exercise property rights.
  • It raises concerns about who has the right to use or own the AI-created product. As the AI system is not a legal body, it cannot enter into agreements allowing it to transfer its inventorship rights.

The ability of an AI to be an inventor under patent law will be determined by the specific language in each jurisdiction’s patent laws. To explicitly incorporate and recognise AI-generated ideas, legislative changes and amendments may be required in nations where plain statutory wording needs an inventor to be a natural person. In places where the statutory language is less explicit, such as Australia, the courts may have additional freedom to consider purposeful statutory interpretation and policy considerations.[4] We anticipate that all IP offices adopt a unified approach to successfully address the emerging difficulties posed by inventions by AI.

References: 

[1] Section 6, the Patents Act, 1970.

[2] Shri Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, Report on the revision of the patents law, 1989.

[3] Rita Matulionyte, Australian court says that AI can be an inventor: what does it mean for authors? Kluwer Copyright Blog (September 2021).

[4] Lam Rui Rong, Can Artificial Intelligence Be an Inventor Under Patent Law? Australian Federal Court Says ‘Yes’ but U.S. District Judge Says ‘No’, SKRINE (September 2021).

Image Credits: Photo by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay 

The ability of an AI to be an inventor under patent law will be determined by the specific language in each jurisdiction’s patent laws. To explicitly incorporate and recognise AI-generated ideas, legislative changes and amendments may be required in nations where plain statutory wording needs an inventor to be a natural person. In places where the statutory language is less explicit, such as Australia, the courts may have additional freedom to consider purposeful statutory interpretation and policy considerations.

POST A COMMENT

Delhi HC Draft Rules for Patent Suits, 2021: Streamlining the Procedure

The Delhi High Court has witnessed a surge in the number of patent infringement actions filed before it across various scientific and technological fields including pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, mechanical engineering, telecommunications, electrical /electronics, wind technology etc, since the past 10-15 years.

In a bid to address the growing complexities concerning patent suits and actions, the Delhi High Court vide its notification dated 10th December published the Rules governing Patent Suits, 2021 in the public domain and has invited inputs and suggestions of the relevant stakeholders, by 17th December 2021.  

The main objective of Drafting a new set of rules is to streamline the procedure for filing patent suits and establish a uniform structure of provisions and governing mandates concerning patent litigation in the city’s adversarial system, following the establishment of IPD.   

Key Highlights of the Draft Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2021

The Draft Rules clarify that the published rules will apply to all patent suits in India which lie before the Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court. As per the issued notification, in case of any inconsistency occurs over the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, then in that case the present rules will prevail.

Further, the General Clause of the Rules (Rule 17) states that “Procedures and definitions not specifically provided for in these Rules shall, in general, be governed by The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as amended by The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 as also the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2021, to the extent they are not inconsistent with the present Rules.”

As per the Definition Clause Rule 2(b), it is maintained that all suits seeking relief under Section 48, Sections 105, 106 including counterclaims under Section 64, Section 108, 109, 114 in the Patent Act, 1970 are governed by the provisions of the Rule. Additionally, the provision of Priority Patent Application has also been provided for in the Rules. It is defined under Rule 2(j) as, “ A parent application, a Convention application or a Patent Cooperation Treaty application from which the suit patent claims priority.”

Rule 3 elaborates upon the mandated contents of the pleadings and Rule 4 provides the details of the documents to be attached with the respective pleadings discussed under Rule 3. It also highlights the specifications that are crucial to mention in the pleadings.

  1. The Plaint (Rule 3 A) shall discuss a brief background of the technology and relevant technical details, ownership details, corresponding suits/applications emanating from the innovation and the respective requisite details of the suit. An infringement analysis through a claim’s vs product chart, list of experts and details of the royalties received qua the suit/ patent portfolio also has to be mentioned.
  1. Written Statement (Rule 3 B) shall be inclusive of arguments comprehensively challenging the claim of infringement. Technical analysis with specifics of the product/process used by the defendant shall be included in the written statement while claiming non-infringement. Further, if the defendant is willing to obtain a license from the patentee, quantum for the same has to be elaborated upon. Details of the sales of the allegedly infringing product/process also have to be provided.
  1. Counter Claim (Rule 3 C) shall be precise as to the grounds that are raised under Section 64 of the Patent Act. The ground claiming lack of novelty or inventive step shall have to be supported by ‘art documents. If a counter-claim is filed seeking relief on the ground of noninfringement, then the requirements for a Suit under Section 105 of the Act shall be followed.
  1. Replication ( Rule 3 D) shall initially summarize Plaintiff’s case and Defendant’s case. Subsequently, it shall provide a para-wise reply to the written statement.
  1. A suit seeking a declaration of non-infringement under section 105 of the Act, shall specify the scope of the claims, the product/process being implemented by the Defendant claimed to be non-infringing and the technical/legal basis on which declaration is being sought
  1. A suit under section 106 of the Act for an injunction against groundless threats shall contain the nature of the threat, whether oral or documentary; details of any challenge made to the validity of the patent and an invalidity brief pursuant to the challenge and details pertaining to correspondence that may have taken place between the parties.

It is pertinent to note that, strict directions and guidelines for the governance of relief applications under the Patent Act, 1970 saves judicial time and resources and improve the quality of judgements delivered by the court.

Further, the Draft Rules segregate the suit adjudication into three case management hearings, apart from the first listing, namely First Case Management Hearing, Second Case Management Hearing, and Third Case Management Hearing. The Rules enumerates specific directions that may be given by the Court at each stage, and also provide guidelines on when certain specific documents may be filed, officers may be appointed, etc. 

A key concept of Hot-tubbing has been discussed under Rule 9 (iii) that provides that expert testimony can be directed by the Court if it deems fit, on its own motion or application by a party to be recorded by Hot Tubbing technique guided by Rule 6, Chapter XI, Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. Further, the rule also discusses the recording of evidence through video conferencing, by a Local Commissioner or at a venue outside the Court’s premises; all subjected to the discretion of the court.

The current Draft under Rule 12 has provided for “compulsory mediation”. It provides that at any stage of the proceedings if the court is of the opinion that the parties ought to explore mediation, it shall appoint a mediator/ a panel of mediators and technical experts to explore the pathway of amicable dispute resolution.

Under Rule 13 the court has been empowered to prepare a list of scientific advisors that shall assist the Court in the adjudication of patent suits. The list shall be subjected to periodical review. When the assistance of the expert is sought, they would have to submit a declaration of integrity and impartiality. 

Under Rule 16, In addition to the provisions in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for Summary judgment, Summary Adjudication of Patent suits can be undertaken in the following conditions;

(a) Where the remaining term of the patent is 5 years or less;

(b) A certificate of validity of the said patent has already been issued or upheld by the erstwhile Intellectual Property Appellate Board, any High Court or the Supreme Court;

(c) If the Defendant is a repeat infringer of the same or related Patent;

(d) If the validity of the Patent is admitted and only infringement is denied.

Conclusion

The Draft Rules present adaptability to the technological revolution that has enveloped the industry sectors across the world by simplifying litigation and increasing flexibility of the procedural aspect of the law. The contents of the pleadings are unambiguously discussed, leaving no room for confusion, as all the requisite information can be obtained by the parties at the first instance. Further, the clearly earmarked list of mandatory documents to be filed by the litigants saves judicial time wasted in adjournments owing to the lack of availability of documents.

Incorporation of methods of video conferences, hot-tubbing etc. for the purpose of collecting evidence while providing for the filing of technical primer, makes the case more comprehensible and streamlines judgment quality across the patent suit. The Draft has also successfully addressed the issue of a lengthy litigation process by providing for Summary adjudication of Patent suits.

Since the Rules are currently open to the opinion and suggestions of the stakeholders, it is yet to be seen how the final rules would shape up.

Image Credits:  Photo by Markus Winkler from Pexels

The Draft Rules present adaptability to the technological revolution that has enveloped the industry sectors across the world by simplifying litigation and increasing flexibility of the procedural aspect of the law. The contents of the pleadings are unambiguously discussed, leaving no room for confusion, as all the requisite information can be obtained by the parties at the first instance.

POST A COMMENT

Draft Delhi High Court IPR Division Rules, 2021: Observations and Concerns

On 10th October, 2021 the Delhi High Court had issued a Public Notice proposing the Draft “Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, ­ 2021”. The Court vide the said notice had invited comments from the members of the Bar by 24th October, 2021. In a much-anticipated development, following the incorporation of the inputs from the Bar, on 10th December 2021 the Hon’ble High Court released the finalised draft of the proposed Rules and has sought suggestions by the relevant stakeholders by December 17, 2021.

 

In July 2021, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court announced the constitution of IPD (Intellectual Property Division) following the abolition of IPAD. The Draft Rules seek to regulate the matters listed before the IPD with respect to practice and procedure for the exercise of its original and appellate jurisdiction, and for other miscellaneous petitions arising out of specific statutes[1].

 

The Structure

The Draft Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, ­ 2021 has a framework of 41 Rules addressing and dealing with various procedures and definitions to be applied while adjudicating cases before the IPD. The General Clause under Rule 29 clarifies that “procedures not specifically provided for in these Rules shall, in general, be governed by The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as amended by The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.”

It is pertinent to note that, following the inputs by the Bar, the term “Acts” under Rule 2a is also now inclusive of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Consequently, under Rule 2d “Appeal” shall also include “an appeal filed before, or transferred to, the IPD” with the nomenclature [C.A. (Comm. IPD-IT)] Under Section 62 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Draft Rules under rule 2i the “intellectual property subject matter” for the purpose of these rules concern the following:

  1. Matters pertaining to Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, Geographical Indications, Plant Varieties, Designs, Semiconductor Integrated Circuit Layout-Designs, Traditional Knowledge, and all rights under common law, if any related to these.
  2. Matters relating to passing off, unfair competition, disparagement, comparative advertising, and other similar issues.
  3. Matters concerning the protection of trade secrets, confidential information, and other related subjects.
  4. Matters relating to tortious actions related to privacy and publicity rights involving intellectual property issues.
  5. Matters pertaining to data exclusivity, domain names, and other matters relating to data protection involving intellectual property issues, as well as those arising under the Acts.
  6. Matters involving internet violations relating to any of the subject matters under clauses (i) through (v).

Notably, the rights related to data protection, data inclusivity and other such related matters are also covered under the scope of the said “subject-matter’. The Explanation attached with the provision states that cases pertaining to the Information Technology Act, 2000 which deal with the rights and liabilities of the intermediaries, online market places and e-commerce platforms

And those “issues relating to any of the aforementioned rights, shall be deemed to be within the purview of intellectual property rights.” 

The final Draft Rules present a precise scope of jurisdiction of the Draft Rules under Rule 4, as compared to the earlier version. The Rule now states that “Every IPR subject matter or case or proceeding or dispute filed before or transferred to, the IPD, as defined in Rules 2(i), 2(j) and 2(l), shall be heard and adjudicated by a Single Judge of the IPD except those that are to be decided by a Division Bench as per Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.”

Rule 6 elaborates the procedure for filing an appeal before the IPD. As per Rule 6 (xii)

“Procedures applicable to Civil Appeals filed before the Single Judge: The Delhi High Court Rules and Orders as also the Practice directions issued from time to time, to the extent there is no inconsistency with these Rules, shall be applicable to appeals filed before the IPD.”

Procedures for filing original civil petitions, civil writ petitions and civil miscellaneous petitions are discussed under Rules 7, 8 and 9 respectively. Further, Rules 10 to 14 enumerate additional requisite procedures to be followed while addressing a suit to the IPD.

Subsequent to the comments by the members of the Bar, the final Draft Rules have incorporated additional provisions pertaining to the recording of the evidence, hot-tubbing or other such modes of recording evidence, discovery and disclosure, preservation of evidence by the parties, Confidentiality clubs and redaction of confidential information and, damages and accounts of profits; from Rules 15-20.

Under Rule 15, recording of evidence can be undertaken through video conferencing ( as per the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2021). The use of videography and transcription technology or any other form of recording evidence can also be applied. Further, evidence can also be recorded at any venue outside the court or by a Local Commissioner. However, it is imperative to note that, the discussed methods shall only be applicable if the court is of the opinion that the same is expedient in the interest of justice.

Interestingly, Rule 18 puts an onus on the parties to the proceedings to “preserve all documentary, tangible and electronic material relating to the subject matter of the proceedings which is capable of being relied upon as evidence” upon the initiation of or receiving notice about the institution of the proceedings before the IPD. Prior to the initiation of the proceedings, a party may issue a Litigation Hold Notice that shall set in motion the evidence preservation liability of the party.

Rule 19 addresses the establishment of a ‘confidentiality club’ by the court at any stage of the proceedings for the preservation and exchange of confidential information filed before the Court including documents, as per the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. Further, the rules state that upon a request by application the court may direct the redaction of such information. However, the rules fail to mention the party, legal practitioner, expert etc that shall have the Locus Standi to approach the court with such application.

Rule 20 elaborates upon the factors that the courts shall have to take into consideration while determining the quantum of damage for a party seeking to settle accounts of profits/damages. Notably, the rule provides that the courts may engage expert assistance (provided for in Rule 31) in the computation of such damages.

The final Draft Rules, 2021 also lay down provision for summary adjudication under Rule 27 on principles akin to those enumerated in Order XIIIA, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It is interesting to note that, unlike the previous version the current rules do not have any provision for summary adjudication in Patent Cases.

With an objective to curb unnecessary delays in the disposal of suits, it is apparent that the High Court has ensured provisions relating to strict guidelines for a written and water-tight timeline for oral submissions are included under Rule 33 of the 2021 Division Rules.

 

Conclusion

The establishment of an independent Intellectual Property Division is an indication of acknowledgement of the importance of Intellectual Property in the country. The corresponding 2021 Division Rules is a concrete step forward, however, the following aspects demand a more sincere deliberation:

  1. Clarity with respect to the Locus Standi of parties, legal practitioners, agents, experts etc. to the case for extending an application to the ‘Confidentiality Club’ needs to be determined.
  2. Under Rule 31 constitution of a Panel of Experts is provided to extend advisory assistance to the court relating to the subject matter of the dispute, as and when necessary. While the provision is definitely in resonance with maintaining the quality adjudicatory function, it fails to elaborate upon the criteria of appointment of the experts. Additionally, the rule mentions ‘reviewing’ the expert panel from time to time, however, the nature and period of such review has not been discussed.

The establishment of an independent Intellectual Property Division is an indication of acknowledgement of the importance of Intellectual Property in the country. The corresponding 2021 Division Rules is a concrete step forward, however, some aspects demand a more sincere deliberation

POST A COMMENT

Why filing of Provisional Patent Application keeps you ahead in the Patenting race?

With an additional focus to build an Innovation based entrepreneurial eco system, innovation is happening at the drop of a hat. However, the floodgate of invention around the race does not seem to be limited to an ingenious mind but also requires a go-getter attitude. As we know, Patent protection works on a “first to file” basis and not on “first to invent” which means it is granted to the one who files the Patent application first, subject to fulfilling other patentability criteria.

A Patent application has to be filed along with certain Specifications (details/working of the invention). These specifications are of two types i.e. Provisional and Complete. Therefore, the application can be filed along with the Provisional or Complete Specification. If filed with Provisional, the Complete specification needs to be filed within 12 months.

 

Provisional Specification is very basic in nature and does not require details about the invention, unlike Complete Specification. Perhaps the difference between the two specifications is clear from the preambles of the specifications itself i.e.:

Preamble of the Provisional Application: “The following specification describes the invention”.

Preamble of the Complete Specification: “The following specification describes the invention and the manner in which it is to be performed.”

 

Even though, the Provisional Specification does not require claims, detailed descriptions, drawings etc., however, due care needs to be taken to ensure that the specification is broad enough so the objectives of the invention is covered as Complete Specification cannot be broader than what was disclosed in the Provisional.

 

Many times, during the office action as well as during the infringement or revocation attack, it is the provisional specification, which is first scrutinized to check if the invention was covered clearly. Therefore, even though it is provisional, taking professional guidance while drafting would be advisable to avoid possible mishaps in the future.

 

In order to stay ahead in the competition of technological advancement, R&D companies and other IP sophisticated companies around the globe, work on new inventions and file applications with the bare minimum information to get a priority date for their inventions. This is done before deep diving into specifics such as looking at the prior art or doing the feasibility test for the product/process etc.

 

Ideally, if an inventor comes up with an invention, she should not wait for the invention to be fully developed or for the feasibility test to be done. Needless to mention, millions of researchers around the globe are working on similar subjects and one never knows who might be coming up with similar invention in some part of the world and perhaps may be moving faster to file the patent application to claim priority.

 

Post filing of a Patent Application along with the Provisional Specification, an inventor has 12 months’ time to complete the research and file the Complete Specification. Since this option has been provided under the Patent law, availing it to claim the priority date would be a wise thing to do rather than wait for the research to complete where one would be running the risk of losing everything if someone else files before them. 

 

Ideally these 12 months period are given so one can carry out the patentability/ prior art search, which help the inventors tremendously in working around similar inventions.  Further, the Companies/inventors could also use the (provisional) Patent Application number to discuss the invention with potential investors, partners, licensee, etc. with due caution. 

 

In a situation where the inventor is unable to file the Complete Specification within the due date due to unavoidable circumstances, there is an option to file a request to post-date the application for a maximum period of six months subject to non-disclosure of the invention in the public domain.  

 

Considering these obvious advantages, filing a Patent Application along with a Provisional Specification could and would prevent a genuine effort from being a day late and a dollar short.

 

 

 

Image Credits: Photo by Med Badr Chemmaoui on Unsplash

Post filing of a Patent Application along with the Provisional Specification, an inventor has 12 months’ time to complete the research and file the Complete Specification. Since this option has been provided under the Patent law, availing it to claim the priority date would be a wise thing to do rather than wait for the research to complete where one would be running the risk of losing everything if someone else files before them. 

POST A COMMENT