Update On Pune Office: Change of Address

Kind Attention..!

This is to update our Patrons that in the wake of our growing client demand, we have changed our Pune office address to a new one which is more centrally located in the heart of city facilitating our patrons, existing and future ones in Pune, Maharashtra and surrounding region to reach us easily and in a hassle free manner.

Kindly note our new Address for PUNE Office as below:

Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys
Office No. 206, 2nd Floor, Citymall,
University Road, Ganesh Khind,
Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411007, Maharashtra, India
Tel: +91-(020) 65223365
E-Mail id: info@khuranaandkhurana.com

REQUEST ALL OUR PATRONS TO KINDLY UPDATE THE CONTACT DETAILS FOR OUR PUNE OFFICE AS MENTIONED ABOVE AND ALL FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS FOR PUNE OFFICE TO BE MADE THERETO

Post Prosecution Pilot Program (P3): A Commendable Decision by USPTO

On Monday 11 July, USPTO announced a new pilot program (P3), intended to boost the prosecution efficiency. Under the P3 program, an applicant can file a request for consideration after final rejection, statement that he is willing and available to participate in the event, along with copy of response to a final rejection, and optionally proposed non-broadening amendment to the one or more claims. The program provides an opportunity to the applicant to make an oral prosecution to a panel of examiners, and then receive a written decision from the panel.

Duration of the initiative:

The P3 pilot is scheduled to start from 11 July 2016 and will continue till earlier of 12 January 2017 or receipt of 1,600 compliant requests by USPTO. There are multiple technology centres involved in this initiative and one or more of them shall stop accepting further requests as soon as their counter reaches 200.

Eligibility:

To participate in the P3 pilot program, applicant has to file a request within 2 months from the mailing date of final rejection, and before applying a notice of appeal. USPTO is providing facility to the applicant, to present an oral presentation to a panel of 3 examiners, during the conference. To apply for P3 Pilot program the requirements are as follows:

  • A request form to apply under P3 pilot program;
  • A statement within the Request Form that the applicant is willing and available to participate in a P3 conference with the panel of examiners;
  • A response under 37 C.F.R. 1.116 comprising no more than 5 pages of arguments (exclusive of amendments) to final rejection; and
  • Optionally a proposed non-broadening amendment to one or more claims.

There is no fee required to participant in the program. The goal of the P3 pilot program is to reduce the number of appeals take to patent trial and appeal board. It will also hopefully reduce the request for continued examination (RCE) filing after final rejection.

The USPTO is also requesting comments from the public, and suggestion to improve the prosecution process. The patent office plans to evaluate the public feedback to the pilot program so as to achieve its goals. Comments and suggestion can be sent by email on: afterfinalpractice@USPTO.gov, or by post to: USPTO, mail stop comments patents, office of commissioner for patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313 – 1450. View the USPTO Notice for more details.

About the Author: Saurabh Kumar Jain, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at: Saurabh@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Patent Cooperation Treaty National Phase Entry in India: 31 months Period: Effect of Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016

Under Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), applicant gets varying period of 30-34 months to enter different states with National Phase applications. In the case of India, this period is 31 months. Decisions have been given by Hon’ble High Courts of India regarding extendible or non-extendible nature of this period of 31 months.

In the case of NOKIA CORPORATION VS DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS decided by Hon’ble MADRAS HC, Indian application was filed as National Phase Entry on August 18, 2009 claiming a priority from an earlier US application 11/622, 147 dated January 11, 2007. Indian Patent Office rejected to accept the patent application by resorting to rule 20 (3) of the Patents Rules, 2003 which mandates to file Indian National Phase Application within 31 months from the priority date which in the current case was August 11, 2009. After returning the documents to attorneys on August 21, 2009, online application was filed on September 10, 2009, which was accorded application No. 5322/CHENP/2009. Along with patent application, petitions under Rule 137 and 138 for condoning the delay in filing National Phase application were also filed, and also request for personal hearing was made. According to the petitioner, National Phase application could be filed within 31 months, along with the request for one month extension of time, under Rule 138, if necessary petition under Rule 137 for Condonation of irregularity was filed before expiry of prescribed period of one month. Patent office rejected to condone the delay by holding that it will be detrimental to public at large. Madras HC held that in case, an application is moved for extension of time by one month or shorter period, it is required to be decided on merit by taking into consideration facts and circumstances of each case. Court went on to stay that it is the discretion of the Controller to extend the period on facts and circumstances of the case, but it was not correct on the part of the Deputy Controller to have rejected the application, by treating it to be not maintainable, as having been filed after expiry of prescribed time under rule 20 of the Patents Rules 2003. In short, court declared that that if applicant shows sufficient cause for the delay, national phase application could be filed within 32 months from the priority date.

After this decision, two different cases related to 31 months were decided by Hon’ble Delhi HC.

In the case of 5402/DELNP/2011, reason for missing timeline of 31 months was mentioned by agents as the non-receipt of the instructing emails due to limitations of the agent’s IT systems in place at that time. Petitions under rule 137 and rule 138 were filed for condoning the delay, obviating the irregularity and extending the deadlines to complete the procedures.

 The petitions were rejected by controller for below reasons:

Reasons for rejecting petition under rule 137:

  1. Condonation can’t be allowed to result in detriment to the interest of any person.
  2. Provisions were applicable to amendments only and not for condoning the delay in filing National Phase application.

Reason for rejecting petition under rule 138:

  1. Application for extension was not made before expiry of prescribed period of time.

Controller decided that condoning the delay would be to the detriment of the public and by resorting to rule 22, Patent Rules, 2003, held that subject matter of the patent application had fallen in the public domain.

Controller also held that the delay in the current case was unintentional, hence articles 48 of the PCT was not attracted as it allows condonation of delay in the case of unavoidable loss or delay in mail and not in the case of unintentional delay.

In the case of 1494/DELNP/2010, reason for not meeting deadline of 31 months was mentioned as docketing error on the part of US Attorney. Petitions under rule 137 and 138 were filed even in this case. In this case also, controller rejected to accept the patent application after the expiry of 31 months and held that subject matter had fallen in the public domain. Controller cited similar grounds as that of the 5402/DELNP/2011 case.

In both cases i.e. 5402/DELNP/2011 and 1494/DELNP/2010, Hon’ble Delhi High Court chose not to rely on the earlier Madras High Court decision and instead relied on Nippon case decided by Delhi HC which had strictly interpreted provisions related to 48 months period during which request for examination is to be filed. Delhi high court declared that in case of the application for which this deadline is missed, application is to be treated as withdrawn and not existent in the law and no amendment of priority date should be allowed in case of such application. Though Nokia case was specific to 31 months period, case was not relied upon in these two cases as it was older than Nippon case, and was decided by Madras court against the latter which was decided by Delhi High Court within jurisdiction of Delhi IPO falls.

Before introduction of the 2016 amendment rules, the picture was unclear as practices of different high courts were different and much was dependent on the discretion of the controller.  Now with the 2016 amendment of rule 138 of the Patent Rules, 2016, possible of extension of 31 months time period has been expressly barred. Rule 138 gives list of timelines in case which, extension cannot be sought. Before amendment, this section was not listing period of 31 months time period as one the non-extendible timelines but now includes the same.

With this change, applicant and their agents are required to docket the applications with more care.

About the Author: Swapnil Patil, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at: swapnil@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Choosing India as International Search Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA): Who Can and Who Cannot

It is long since October 15th, 2013, that India started to work as International Search Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA).  Agreement between the Indian Patent Office (IPO) and the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in respect of the same can be accessed here. With the introduction of Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016, that took effect from May 16, 2016, India has brought in provision for Expedited Examination of Patent applications for which request may be made on any of the following grounds, namely:-

 (a) that India has been indicated as the competent ISA or elected as an IPEA in the corresponding international application; or

(b) that the applicant is a startup.

So as to better understand the eligibility to request for expedited examination, it is important to understand which states can choose India as competent ISA and IPEA. In the above referred agreement, article 3 that deals with Competence of Authority makes it clear that the India shall act as ISA and IPEA for any international application filed with the receiving Office of, or acting for, any Contracting State specified in Annex A provided other requirements are fulfilled. Annex A states that India; and any State that the India will specify can choose India as competent ISA and IPEA. As India has not specified any other state than India that can choose India as ISA and IPEA, as on now India is the only state with the receiving Office of, or acting for which international application may be filed in order to select India as competent ISA and IPEA.

So as per the existing scenario, for Indian Applicants, any of the Austrian Patent Office (AT), Australian Patent Office (AU), European Patent Office (EP), China Intellectual Property Office (CN), United States Patent & Trademark Office (US), Swedish Patent Office (SE) and India (IN) can be chosen as competent ISAs and IPEAs but India can be chosen as ISA and IPEA only for international applications filed with the receiving Office of, or acting for India.

About the Author: Swapnil Patil, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at:swapnil@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Federal Circuit Rules 180-Day Post-Licensure Notice is Mandatory in Biosimilar Litigation

In Amgen v. Apotex (No. 2016-1308), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 5, 2016 affirmed a district court’s ruling that a biosimilar applicant must provide a reference product sponsor with 180 days’ post-licensure notice before commercial marketing of a biosimilar product begins, regardless of whether the applicant provided the § 262(l)(2)(A) notice of USFDA review.

            In Amgen v. Apotex, the Federal Circuit rejected Apotex’s contention that the 180-day pre-marketing notice requirement does not apply to biosimilar applicants who participated in the “patent dance” procedure of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), expanding on its decision in Amgen v. Sandoz that the 180 days notice provision under § 262(l)(8)(A) is mandatory in all circumstances, whether or not the applicant engages in the patent dance.

Background:

            The biologic product at issue is Amgen’s Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim). Pegfilgrastim is a PEGylated form of the recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) analog filgrastim. Pegfilgrastim treatment that can help patients make white blood cells after receiving cancer treatment. After Apotex filed a Biologic License Application (BLA) seeking FDA approval to market a biosimilar version of Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim), the parties began the BPCIA’s patent information exchange process, known as the “patent dance”, and as a result, Amgen concluded that two patents U.S. Patent Nos. 8,952,138 and 5,824,784 will be infringed by Apotex’s biosimilar version of Neulasta®. Those infringement claims are being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, although the ‘784 patent has been dropped since it expired.

            Apotex sent Amgen a letter on April 17, 2015, stating that it was “providing notice of future commercial marketing pursuant to § 262(l)(8)(A), though Apotex lacked an FDA license.” Amgen sought a preliminary injunction to “require Apotex to provide … notice if and when it receives a marketing license from FDA and to delay any commercial marketing for 180 days from that notice.” The district court granted that motion, citing the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen v. Sandoz that notice cannot be given before the biosimilar product is approved. Apotex appealed.

What is Biosimilar Patent Dance:

            The US Biosimilars Act sets forth several requirements for biosimilar applications, including the so-called “Patent Dance” which describes the process by which the biosimilar applicant and the reference product sponsor (“RPS”) exchange patent-related information for resolving any patent disputes before a biosimilar product can enter the US market.  This procedure has strict timing and sequencing requirements and involves several rounds of information exchanges between the reference product sponsor and the biosimilar applicant. Some of the key steps of this process include:

  • Within 20 days after the FDA has accepted its abbreviated application, the biosimilar applicant must provide the reference product sponsor with confidential access to the biosimilar application and relevant manufacturing information for the proposed biologic.
  • Within 60 days of receiving these materials, the reference product sponsor must provide to the biosimilar applicant: (1) a list of patents it believes are infringed, and (2) identify which, if any, of these patents it would be willing to license to the biosimilar applicant.
  • Within 60 days of receipt of the patent list, the biosimilar applicant must provide the reference product sponsor a statement describing, on a claim-by-claim basis, the factual and legal basis as to why each patent is invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed. Within this same 60 day period, the biosimilar applicant may provide to the reference product sponsor a counter list of patents that the biosimilar applicant believes could be subject to a claim of patent infringement.
  • Within 60 days of receiving these materials, the reference product sponsor must provide a reciprocal statement describing, on a claim-by-claim basis, the factual and legal basis that each patent will be infringed, as well as a response to any statement regarding validity and enforceability.
  • The parties then have up to 15 days to negotiate in good faith to arrive at a list of patents, if any, that should be subject to a patent infringement action.

– If the parties reach agreement, then the reference product sponsor must bring an infringement action within 30 days for each patent on the negotiated list.

– If the parties do not reach agreement, the biosimilar applicant must notify the reference product sponsor of the number of patents it will provide in a second list, and the parties then simultaneously exchange within 5 days of this notice a list of patents that each party believes should be the subject of the infringement litigation. Within 30 days after this exchange, the reference product sponsor must bring an infringement action on all the patents on the simultaneously exchanged lists.

The Federal Circuit’s decision in the Amgen v. Apotex case:

            Two provisions of the BPCIA were at play in the Federal Circuit’s decision.  First, under § 262(l)(2)(A), the biosimilar applicant initiates the statutory “patent dance” by providing a copy of its biosimilar application and information about how its product is manufactured.  Second, under § 262(l)(8)(A), the applicant must provide a notice to the innovator 180 days before the first commercial marketing of the biosimilar product.

            In Amgen v. Apotex, Apotex argued that it had followed the patent dance procedure and made its (2)(A) disclosures to Amgen, and that the (8)(A) notice of commercial marketing is only mandatory if the applicant failed to provide the information required by (2)(A).

            The Federal Circuit rejected this argument and upheld the district court’s grant of an injunction to Amgen.  The court held that (8)(A) is mandatory in all circumstances, whether or not the applicant engages in the patent dance.

            The Federal Circuit looked to the text of the law, finding that the “language of (8)(A) is categorical”, and there is “no other statutory language that effectively compels a treatment of (8)(A) as non-mandatory.”  The court further noted that § 262(l)(8)(A) “contains no words that make the applicability of its notice rule turn on whether the applicant took the earlier step of giving the § 262(l)](2)(A) notice that begins the patent dance (i.e. information-exchange) process,” and stood by its holding in Amgen v. Sandoz that the statute is “‘a standalone notice provision’ not dependent on the information-exchange processes that begin with (2)(A).” The court held that “the (8)(A) notice must be a notice given after FDA licensure of the biosimilar product, not before, and that pre-licensure notices are of no legal effect for purposes of (8)(A)”. The court explained that the 180 days period gives the reference product sponsor a period of time to assess and act upon its patent rights.

            In sum, the Federal Circuit concluded that a biosimilar applicant must provide a reference product sponsor with 180 days’ post-licensure notice before commercial marketing begins, regardless of whether the applicant provided the (2)(A) notice of FDA review.

The Federal Circuit’s order can be found at the following link:

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1308.Opinion.6-30-2016.1.PDF

About the Author: Antony David, Senior Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at: antony@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Trademark/ Copyright and Patents Suits/ Civil Proceedings: Why Non-uniformity in Jurisdictions Available to Plaintiffs?

Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 134 of the Trademark Act, 1999, Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 and section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 govern the applicable jurisdiction to file suits/ civil proceedings in case of Copyright, Trademark and Patent disputes.

These sections have been reproduced below:

For Copyright:

Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957:  

Jurisdiction of court over matters arising under this Chapter.—

(1) Every suit or other civil proceeding arising under this Chapter in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right conferred by this Act shall be instituted in the district court having jurisdiction.

(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a “district court having jurisdiction” shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, include a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or, where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.

P.S. – (Emphasis added)

For Trademark:

Section 134 of the Trademark Act, 1999:

Suit for infringement, etc., to be instituted before District Court.—

(1) No suit—

(a) for the infringement of a registered trade mark; or

(b) relating to any right in a registered trade mark; or

(c) for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark, whether registered or unregistered, shall be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2) For the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), a “District Court having jurisdiction” shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or any other law for the time being in force, include a District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or proceeding, or, where there are more than one such persons any of them, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Explanation —For the purposes of sub-section (2), “person” includes the registered proprietor and the registered user.

P.S. – (Emphasis added)

For Patent:

Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970:

No suit for a declaration under section 105 or for any relief under section 106 or for infringement of a patent shall be instituted in any court inferior to a district court having jurisdiction to try the suit: Provided that where a counter-claim for revocation of the patent is made by the defendant, the suit, along with the counter-claim, shall be transferred to the High Court for decision.

For Copyright, Trademark and Patent:

Section 20 of CPC:

Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction—

(a) The defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the Suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

Explanation: A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.

Analysis:

Section 20 of CPC provide for filing of suit at the court within local limits of which cause of action arises wholly or in part or at the court within local limits of which defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain. In the absence of any other specific section of the law currently in force, plaintiff cannot choose to file suit at the court within local limits of which he resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain. Fortunately in case of Trademark and Copyright, section 134 of the Trademark Act, 1999 and section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 respectively provide for filing of suit also at the court within local limits of which plaintiff resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain. Unfortunately Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 for patents does not provide such convenience. Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 only provides that infringement suits can be instituted at any court not inferior to a district court. As section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 does not provide the details of the territorial jurisdiction of district/ high court where suits for patent disputes are to be filed, jurisdiction is to be decided in accordance with section 20 of CPC.

Reader is advised to read article written by IIPRD on the inclusive nature of section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and section 134 of the Trademark Act, 1999.

Below given table compares the convenience of plaintiffs being a corporation (which includes a company) in case of trademark/copyright and patent suits.

trademark copyright and patent suits

In the times to come when patent infringement suits will be on the rise, plaintiff should not be driven to file suits at the location where infringement took place or location where defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain. Change in law to bring the section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 in lines with section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and section 134 of the Trademark Act, 1999 is required to stop the inconvenience being caused to plaintiffs in case of patent suits.

About the Author: Swapnil Patil, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at: swapnil@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Analyzing the Applicable Jurisdiction for Trademark and Copyright Disputes

Years 2015 and 2016 have been very important in terms of what they have offered to bring clarity on the jurisdiction where suits/ civil proceedings related to Trademark and Copyright can be instituted. IIPRD has written one article discussing some of these cases. Intent of the instant article is not to discuss facts of those cases again but to understand the latest position on the applicable jurisdiction for Trademark and Copyright disputes.

Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as section 62), Section 134 of the Trademark Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as section 134) and section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), (hereinafter referred to as section 20) 1908 govern the applicable jurisdiction.

These sections have been discussed below:

For Copyright:

Section 62:

Jurisdiction of court over matters arising under this Chapter. —

(1) Every suit or other civil proceeding arising under this Chapter in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right conferred by this Act shall be instituted in the district court having jurisdiction.

(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a “district court having jurisdiction” shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, include a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or, where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.

P.S. – (Emphasis added)

For Trademark:

Section 134:

Suit for infringement, etc., to be instituted before District Court. —

(1) No suit—

(a) for the infringement of a registered trade mark; or

(b) relating to any right in a registered trade mark; or

(c) for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark, whether registered or unregistered, shall be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2) For the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), a “District Court having jurisdiction” shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or any other law for the time being in force, include a District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or proceeding, or, where there are more than one such persons any of them, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Explanation. —For the purposes of sub-section (2), “person” includes the registered proprietor and the registered user.

P.S. – (Emphasis added)

For both Copyright and Trademark:

Section 20:

Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. – Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction—

(a) The defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the Suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

Explanation: A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.

Section 62 and Section 134 are pari materia. It is important to note that both of these sections are ‘inclusive’ in nature. They are categorical in nature. The inclusive nature of these sections can be inferred from the word ‘include’.

To better understand the intent and effect of section 62 and section 134, let’s understand what recourse plaintiff would have in absence of these sections and what recourses they have now with these sections.

In absence of Section 62 and Section 134, having resort to section 20, plaintiff may be able to file the suit of infringement against the defendant only at the district court (in case of copyright) or at a court that is not inferior to the district court (in case of trademark) within local limits of which cause of action wholly or in part arises, or where defendant resides, carries on business or personally works for gain. But when we read Section 62 and Section 134 with section 20, plaintiff can also file suit for infringement at a place where he resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Plaintiff is not barred to file suits at courts having jurisdictions where cause of action has arisen wholly or in part or at court having jurisdiction where defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain even if plaintiff is not residing or carrying on business or personally working for gain in any of those jurisdictions.  

Section 62 and section 134 are not in derogation of section 20, instead they just provide an additional forum for the suing to the plaintiff. Such interpretation of section 62 and section 134 has been confirmed by division bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court in M/S. MICRO LABS LIMITED, REP., BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY V/S M/S. ERIS LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD., decided on Tuesday, September 15, 2015.

After INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LTD. Versus. SANJAY DALIA AND ORS: (2015) 10 SCC 161 decided on July 01, 2015 by Hon’ble Supreme Court and ULTRA HOMES CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD Versus PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHAUBEY & ORS FAO (OS) 494/2015 & CM 17816/2015 decided on January 20, 2016 by Hon’ble division bench of Delhi High court, plaintiff being a corporation (which includes a company), can sue at places as discussed below:

Picture2

By drawing analogy from the case laws read with section 134, section 62 and section 20, below is produced a table that discusses the applicable jurisdiction that may arise in different cases.

Picture1

About the Author: Swapnil Patil, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at: swapnil@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Submission on SEPs and Their Availability Under FRAND Terms

  1. Introduction

This submission is with respect to the discussion paper published by DIPP on Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and their availability under FRAND terms. As one of the prime objects of IP laws is to promote/establish a fair balance between IP protection and Public interest, it is becoming essential for the governing bodies to have a closure look on the way SEPs are being commercialized.  In absence of any clear frameworks or guidelines by the government and standards making organizations, a lot of concerns have been raised recently with regards to working of standard essential patents.  It has been observed across the globe that there is no standard for terming any patent as Standard Essential Patent and there certainly are no standard /clear enforceable guideline under which the SEPs should be licensed to interested parties.

In view of the issues raised during recent litigations and foreseen issues related to SEPs and the ways they are licensed, the DIPP has taken a welcome step to develop a suitable policy framework to define obligations of the essential patent holders and their licensees.  Though the discussion paper under heading of “issues for resolution” attempts to explore a variety of issues, the objective appears to be conservatively defined. We think that the objective should be to develop a suitable framework/guideline for (a) Standards Setting Organizations (SSOs), (b) Government Bodies that approve or mandate any standard, (c) Rights holders of SEPs and  (d) Potential Licensees; and to evaluate need for change in domestic laws, if required.

Through this paper, we intent to submit our opinion on different issues listed for resolution and some other inputs to be evaluated further. We have also made an attempt to propose some obligations for each of the above listed entities

  1. Legislative measure

Let’s start with the first issue listed for resolution.

  1. Whether the existing provisions in the various IPR related legislations, especially the Patents Act, 1970 and Anti-Trust legislations, are adequate to address the issues related to SEPs and their availability on FRAND terms? If not, then can these issues be addressed through appropriate amendments to such IPR related legislations? If so, what changes should be affected.

Though the Patent Act, 1970 incorporates several provisions (like compulsory license) to strike a balance between the interest of IP owners and public interest, the issues related to SEPs were never explored to be addressed by the law.  As the issues related to SEPs have potential to directly impact public interest, it is right time for the legislators to explore possibility of suitable changes in the law or clarification of law to address the issues related to SEPs.

            The patent act 1970 through section 66 has also provided tool for revocation of patent in public interest that reads as “Where the Central Government is of opinion that a patent or the mode in which it is exercised is mischievous to the State or generally prejudicial to the public, it may, after giving the patentee an opportunity to be heard, make a declaration to that effect in the Official Gazette and thereupon the patent shall be deemed to be revoked”.Though the provision has been rarely, in fact never,  invoked (at least to my knowledge), there should be some clarify on the term “generally prejudicial to the public”, and whether the section 66 can be a potential tool to revoke the SEP if the public interest is undermined due to abuse of dominance by the SEP holders.  Here are some of the proposals that can be incorporated through appropriate amendments after careful evaluation.

Proposed Legislative Measures:

  • Addition of grounds of revocation: An additional group of revocation under section 64 can be added to enable revocation of patent in case of failure of timely disclosure of essential patents related to a standard by a member or non-member of the associated standard, especially when the patent makes a claim of it being a SEP, to avoid any potential patent hold-up issues.
  • Requirement under section 146 rules 131 requiring disclosure on working on patents in form-27 to clearly state if the patent is a SEP and associated standard,if any, for which the patent has potential of becoming SEP. Though most of the SSOs require disclosure of the IP by member of the SSOs, the obligation is mostly contractual and may not have binding effect in the law of land, and hence a suitable legislative measure in this regard is required to avoid practice of patent hold-up.
  • Avoid injunction by the court if bona-fide intent is shown by the potential licensee: Courts should refrain from granting injunctions in suits initiated by the SEP holders without giving reasonable opportunity to the potential licensee to prove a bona-fide intent to take a license from the SEP holder.
  • Limiting the right conferred by a patent in case the patent is an SEP.
  • Provision for “license of right” should be explored in order to ensure license of the patent to a potential licensee at RAND terms. Section 46 of the UK Patent Act 1977 (as amended) provides a patent proprietor with the possibility of having an entry made on the register that licences are available as of right under a patent.   By having a patent endorsed “licences of right”, a patent proprietor effectively offers any third party the opportunity to have a licence under the patent, on reasonable terms. If terms of a licence cannot be agreed between the parties then the UK Patent Office sets the licence terms[1]. A similar provision can be made in India, as it benefits both the right holder and the potential licensee.  Through this provision, the patent holder can get rebate on the annuity fee as well.

Though it is a well perceived notion that the interference of Government in IP commercialization can undermine interest of the right holders, the same cannot be said for SEPs, as unregulated SEPs create opportunity for abuse of dominant position of right holders. Legislative measures to address issues related to SEPs have also been discussed and explored during thirteenth session by the WIPO standing committee on the law of patents[2]. The legislative measures are also required in absence of any strong enforceability within India for contractual violation by members of SSOs with respect to agreement of the members with the SSOs. Requirement of legislative measures has also been felt in recent cases which show uneven negotiating power of IP owner and potential licensor-especially in case of SEPs, where mutual contracts-especially with unreasonable terms of NDA-may not be right tool for executing the licensing agreement.  The advantages of these solutions are that they are universal, and also apply to non-participants in the standard-setting process.

  1. Guidelines for Standards Setting Organizations (SSOs)

The proposed policy framework should also define the guideline/obligation for standards setting organizations, especially with respect to adaptation of technology for setting the standard and terming any patent essential for standard. The rationale behind FRAND is that it benefits the inclusion of patented technology in technical standards while ensuring that the holder of SEPs should not abuse the dominant market position it gains from widespread adoption of a voluntary technical standard. It has clearly been observed by the communities over the world that Patents are essential to implement  chosen industry standards, and those patents (SEPs) cannot be exploited like any other patent, and certainly not to the exclusion of other market participants.

SSOs should also ask members to identify their most restrictive licensing terms and conditions, including the maximum royalty rate, basis of royalty (whether smallest tradeable unit or the end product etc.), that they would demand if access to their patents becomes necessary to implement the standard. Such disclosures, made in advance of a standard being selected, provide SSO members important information that allows them to choose a standard based not only on technical merit, but also on the cost of accessing the IP needed to implement that standard.

Selection of SEPs should be one of the essential part during standard making.  Members should / must disclose all granted and pending applications, which should be examined by a team of SSO with respect to their essentiality and should be termed as SEP only if their essentiality is established at a broad level.  Members should also disclose in future any granted and pending applications in order to allow SSOs to evaluate essentiality and terming those patents as SEPs.  Members should essentially disclose the IPR which might be essential if that proposal is adopted and the law should be amended accordingly to ensure invalidation/revocation of IPRs in absence of such disclosure.

The SSOs should have a transparent system in which technology standards are adopted, and should have clear IP policy requiring binding obligation on the members to disclose their IP.

  • Representation of Government

To make the system more transparent, wherever possible or for standard having potential to impact public at large, there should be representation of the Government during standard making process.

  • Onus of SSOs to monitor SEP

Having technical experts in their panels, the SSOs should have an onus to monitor SEPs and evaluate IP declared by its members to determine whether the disclosed patent is essential for the standard or not.  There should be guideline on what becomes an essential patent and what should be reasonable terms and conditions for licensing the SEPs.

Washington District Court in Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. defined SEP as “A given patent is “essential” to a standard if use of the standard requires infringement of the patent, even if acceptable alternatives of that patent could have been written into the standard.” A patent is also essential “if the patent only reads onto an optional portion of the standard.” Thus, it is impossible to manufacture standard-compliant products without using technologies covered by one or more SEPs.

The judgement very broadly defines the term SEPs and has never been examined by any other court in other jurisdiction, which leaves a question mark on the merit of the definition itself. With this very broad definition of SEP, the SSOs have to have  an obligation to define a transparent way in which  patents become SEPs and how they should be licensed. As some of the standards set by the SSOs are directly impacting the public interest, the SSOs can’t be an elite club of influential corporate houses and a tool for the elites to secure dominant position.  SSOs should take onus to getting the license from the IP owners and make them available at FRAND terms.

  • IP Policy of the SSOs

IP policy of the SSOs should have some mandatory provisions to create binding obligation on the members. Some of the essential provisions are listed as below

  • Disclosure requirement: IP policy should have a building clause for disclosure of patent or pending applications by the members on timely manner (may be within 6 month of claim being grated or application being filed).The ANSI Patent Policy Guidelines suggest that, in order to encourage early disclosure of essential patents, one or more requests be made to participants during the development of standards for the disclosure of essential patents. Such a request could be made by including it in letter ballots or in requests could be repeated at working group(s) or by a semi-annual notice given to each participant. The Guidelines, however, clarify that participants in the standards development process are not required to conduct a patent search of their own or others’ patent portfolios. The Guidelines also suggest that the ASD makes it clear that any participant in the process, and not only a patent holder, is permitted to identify or disclose essential patents. They state that it is desirable to encourage disclosure of as much information as possible concerning the patent, such as the identity of the patent holder, patent number, information regarding how it may relate to the standard being developed and relevant unexpired foreign patents. Further, the Guidelines encourage disclosure of existing pending US applications, although there may be an issue of confidentiality regarding unpublished applications and uncertainty as to whether the application would mature into a patent and what the scope of the claims in the granted patent would be.
  • Disclaimer to offer license on FRAND terms: Written declaration by the member to grant the license of SEPs on FRAND terms without any discrimination between existing or potential licensees should be mandatory. Agreement to grant the SEPS on FRAND terms should be the primary requirement when any technology is adopted by the SSOs and they must ensure that the FRAND terms are used in essence. Deviation of set guideline of FRAND should be treated as violation of agreement and should be linked with loss of IP rights.
  • Royalty base: Declaration by the members that they will negotiate Royalty for the SEPs based on smallest saleable component. The same view on royalty base has been suggested by the CCI and even by the some SSOs for example IEEE-SA. There can be an indicative price of royalty set by the SSOs, and share/percentage of each member, which respect to contribution of claim in the technology should be defined by the SSOs for each member. For example the SSO can define that the highest royalty rate for a compliant smallest saleable component would be “X” percentage of the cost of that smallest component, and royalty share for company A be M percentage of X, company B be N percentage of X and like that.
  • Injunction Against potential Licensee: Member can’t seek, or threaten to seek, injunction against potential licensee who is willing to negotiate for license.
  • NDA: Terms of the NDA for execution of licensing agreement can’t hide the SEPs in question. SSOs around the world have raised the issue of Patent Hold-up and Royalty Stacking in view of non-conformity of FRAND practices by licensors which gets complicated due to the discriminatory NDAs. Hence, there is a need to frame an acceptable framework for NDAs, in case both the licenser and licensees consider it as obvious in some cases.  To supplement, SSOs should seek advanced binding commitments from members before a standard is accepted.
  • Bundling of SEP patent with other patents: The member should not bundle SEPs with other patents of the members, as this creates an unfair practice and leads to abuse of dominance.
  • Patent Pool

The stacking up of royalty rates is a major issue, particularly in the IT industry where thousands of patents are involved in a single product.  In the instance of multiple royalty rates, that too with jacked-up values, at times the viability of profit diminishes, and thereafter, the burden shifts to the customer. A probable solution, although somewhat hard, would be step-down royalty rate or total royalty pool.  For step-down royalty rate, the share of each subsequent SEP holder will diminish as per a present declining rate. This makes sure that the multiple SEPs bring in their patents and the cost of the standard is disclosed to the SSO.

Patent pool managed by the SSOs can be a suitable option that may benefit all the members and potential licensees.  SSOs or any appropriate administrative body should facilitate patent pool for SEPs and define portion of royalty to be made to each SEP holders.  By doing so, chance of a single member getting an unreasonable royalty and undermining the interest of other member can also be avoided.   SSOs/ administrative body can work in coordination with Patent offices and should keep an eye on any potential patent-hold up. An attempt should be made to include maximum patents, those are essential for standard. A suitable royalty model for sharing of royalty among members can be explored.

In order to bring more transparency and predictability to the overall royalty price for the implementation of standards, some propose a new model (“Industrial Royalty Pie” model). In the telecom environment which is characterized by complex and dynamic standards having broad technical scope and long evolution cycles over many years, it is felt that a mere ex ante disclosure of licensing terms at the SSO is not effective, since it is too early for prospective patent owners to put a meaningful price tag on the technology. The Industrial Royalty Pie model therefore combines the ex ante process with other measures so that both individual royalty rates are FRAND-compliant and cumulative royalty rates are reasonable.

  • Special IP policy for Standards enforced/recommended by Government /Law

There should be guidelines from the Government for licensing of patents relating to technical requirements that are imposed by law, referred as technical regulations based a defined framework. There should be special guideline for licensing SEPs under FRAND for SEPs related to standards that are enforced by Government/law (like encryption Techniques, security features in automobile or medical devices etc.).

  1. Miscellaneous

Further question arises about scope of claim and rights protected for possibly changed claim in different countries.  As IP rights are territorial in nature, complete family of a patent can’t be essential. For example, a patent granted in US may be SEP, while the same patent granted in India may not be, as its scope of protection may have varied during prosecution, and again onus lies on the SSOs to compile the SEPs for different jurisdiction.

Special care should be taken by Government agency before issuing any ruling on a standard to be followed, keeping in view the potential IP licensing issues related to SEPs.

Disclaimer

Opinion and suggestion provided in this submission are personal to the author and not indicative of the organization that they belong to.

[1]http://www.bios.net/daisy/patentlens/2528.html

[2]STANDARD AND PATENTS DOCUMENT SCP/13/2   www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_13/scp_13_3.pdf

About the Author: Gyanveer Singh, Senior Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at:gyanveer@khuranaandkhurana.com and Harsh, Junior Patent Associate at IIPRD and can be reached at: harsh@iiprd.com.

Employee VS Employer: Country Wise Ownership Rights on IP

The renewed focus on R&D especially under ‘Make in India’ to boost the manufacturing sector, needs the internationalization of Intellectual Property (IP) Rights policies. The confusion over the rights of employees and employer over the ownership of inventions needs special attention. The judgment of High Court (HC) of Bombay in Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v Gharda Chemicals Ltd & ors (2014) SCC Online Bom 1851, discussed in more detail later, rules in favor of employees to own patents in their own name if their claimed invention was not part of their scope of work.  This blog aims to focus on some of these issues by taking examples of major countries and the practices being followed by them.

Germany

As per German law, employee inventions are of two kinds- tied or free. Tied inventions come under term of employment either from the employee’s tasks in the public or private organizations or are essentially based upon the experience or activities of these organizations. All other inventions are considered free and they belong to the employee. An employer has all the rights to the intellectual property for the invention by the employee during an employment for an unlimited period. The inventions at high schools, colleges of science by professors, research assistants and lecturers are considered free inventions.

UK

An invention made by an employee:

  • Made in the course of normal duties or in the course of the duties falling outside the normal duties, but specifically assigned to him.
  • At the time he had a special obligation to further the interests of the employer’s undertaking.

In both of the above cases the invention belongs to the employer. Any other invention by the employee belongs to him.

US

The inherent ownership right of the invention belongs to the owner. In general, the federal government obtains title, domestic rights and interests of invention by any government employee during working hours or using government facilities. But if the government’s contribution is found unjustifiable or the government has insufficient interest in the invention, then the employees own the right. The government retains the royalty free license.

In case the employee owns the invention, the employer may be entitled to “shop rights” (right to practice the invention on a nontransferable, royalty free basis), as a matter of equity for making use of employer’s resources.

Japan

In case the employee obtained a patent for an invention while working within the employer’s scope of business function, then the employer is entitled to a nonexclusive license to the patent. Noticeably the employer has no claim if the case does not belong to the invention in service.

France

All inventions that the employee makes for his inventive mission and functions as defined by his employment contract belong to the employer. The same is the case for the explicitly entrusted studies and research. In these cases the employee is entitled to an additional remuneration.

In all other cases, the invention is deemed to belong to the employee. If an employee’s invention belongs to the company’s field or uses company’s resources and data then the employer may claim ownership rights of the invention. Here the employee is entitled for due remuneration.

China

In China, the right to apply for a patent is subject to the division between the service and non-service invention.

  • Service invention, in execution of tasks of entity that employs the inventor or made using the entity’s resources, give entity the right to apply for it.
  • Non-service inventions give right to the inventor to apply for a patent. Additionally, the inventors are awarded money as prize for non-service inventions by any entity holding patents rights for such inventions.

Scenario in India and ideal practices

In India, public-funded research institutes have one of appointment terms assigning patent rights to the employing organization. Further the rules applicable to R&D personnel, involved in carrying out scientific and technical research, restricts them from applying or obtaining a patent for their inventions. Also there is a need to take permission from the employing organization in order to take commercial benefit out of a work.

Although, some premier institutes of research and development in India such as Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and Indian Institute of Science (IISC) have framed their own IP Rights policies which are encompassing the rights of employees giving them more rights and benefits. Some of the other practices in India, and their comparison with more employee friendly norms in other countries, make a case for changes in the existing laws and policies like discussed below:

  • In public- funded R&D organizations the case in Indian does not grant freedom to claim rights over the inventions made outside normal working hours or without using the employer’s resources. In many major countries the employees get the rights in this case.
  • In India, an employee is not entitled to IP Rights for inventing outside the scope of the field of the employers. In other countries inventions made outside the business activity or the scope of specifically assigned tasks give rights to the employee.
  • Surprisingly the situation is more confusing and complicated in case of private enterprises. There have been cases when employees have taken away intellectual property from the private employer, after resigning and claiming an invention for the work done in that organization. In an opposite scenario, companies also exploit employees by binding them for not using some information and skills even after termination of employment.

To conclude on a high note, the Bombay HC in Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v Gharda Chemicals Ltd & ors (2014) SCC Online Bom 1851 applied the test of ‘duty to invent’. More particularly, the court was of the opinion that the defendant managing director, not under duty or instruction to invent per se, was not obliged to register the patent in the employing company’s name. Additionally, the court pointed out the contract of employment, which only stated managerial powers, along with the Indian law principles did not suggest that the patent filed by the employee belong to the employer, particularly in this case.  These developments again bring forward the stress on clear employment contacts in order to address the conundrum of IP rights.

Reference

  1. Douglas Morgan, India – Employee-Owned Intellectual Property, March 2015
  2. John P. McNeill, EMPLOYERS, EMPLOYEES, And INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, Nov. 2011
  3. V K Gupta, Employer VS Employee Inventions : IPR Issues in R&D Organizations, Vol 5, September 2000, pp 239-250

About the Author: Gyanveer Singh, Senior Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at: gyanveer@khuranaandkhurana.com and Harsh, Junior Patent Associate at IIPRD and can be reached at: harsh@iiprd.com.

Era of Start-Ups in India-ease in Intellectual Property Registration to be Decisive Factor

There have been many developments recently that have streamlined the process of registration of Intellectual Properties (IPs) of Start-Ups. This article discusses the chronological events and the latest position on the IP registration of Start-Ups. Under the ambitious plan, ‘StartUp India, StandUp India’, Government of India launched Scheme for Facilitating Start-Ups Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP). This move was taken primarily to facilitate registration of Patents, Designs and Trademarks for Start-Ups. This scheme attracted attention of most of the Start-Ups as scheme requires them to borne only statutory/ official fees for registration of IPs and registration of their IPs is to be handled by government appointed facilitators. Professional fees payable to facilitators is to be paid by Government and not by Start-Ups.

On March 03, 2016, IPO released forms for appointment of facilitators for patents and trademarks.

On April 22, 2016, IPO notified the scheme, application information, patent facilitators, and trademark facilitators. And on May 16, 2016, IPO notified about Patent (Amendment) rules coming into effect from May 16, 2016.

One can refer to Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion’s (DIPP) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) to understand how Start-Ups can avail the benefits of the schemes of Government of India. These frequently asked questions are related to Start-Ups, Incubators providing Recommendation/ Support/ Endorsement Letter to Start-Ups, and funding Bodies providing Recommendation/ Support/ Endorsement Letter to Start-Ups. Qualification to be defined as Start-Up, how to get benefits of various government schemes, timelines, procedure, documentation required for registration as Start-Up, who can be incubator, how to issue recommendation/ support/ endorsement letter, liabilities of incubator, what are funding bodies, liabilities of funding bodies are some of the example of questions dealt in the list of FAQs. Reader of this article is encouraged to go through the entire list of FAQs to understand the nitty-gritty regarding of the registration of entity as Start-Up.

Amended patent rules give definition of Start-Ups and amazingly apply same fees to Start-Ups as applicable to natural persons. Another big advantage given to Start-Ups is that they are eligible to apply for expedited examination as against normal examination of patent applications.

Definition of startups is given as below:

Startup‖ means an entity, where-

(i) more than five years have not lapsed from the date of its incorporation or registration;

(ii) the turnover for any of the financial years, out of the aforementioned five years, did not exceed

rupees twenty-five crores; and

(iii) it is working towards innovation, development, deployment or commercialisation of new products, processes or services driven by technology or intellectual property:…

  1. Fees applicable to Start-Ups:

It is important to note that if an applicant is start-Up at the time of filing of patent application but ceases to be so afterwards, it will not have to pay the additional fees to patent office. However, in case of transfer of patent application to other than natural person, the person to whom application is being transferred has to pay the difference in fees applicable to Start-Ups and to itself.

  • Patents:

The below table gives overview of important statutory fees that have be paid till the grant of patent.

  • Trademarks:

Till trademark registration, the statutory fees have to be paid only at the time of filing of trademark application. Fees payable at the time of filing of trademark application is INR 4,000.

  • Designs:

There has been no change in fees applicable to design registration so statutory fees have to borne by entity as per the current schedule.  Statutory fee for conducting a standard search for establishing registrability of Design is INR 2,000 for small entity, INR 4,000 for large entity and for design application preparation and filing is INR 2,000 for small entity, INR 4,000 for large entity.

The below table gives the professional fees payable (in INR) to facilitators by Government:

In case of withdrawal or abandonment of application before disposal, facilitator shall be entitled only for filing of application and not for disposal of application.

  1. Eligibility to apply for expedited examination:

Start-Up applicant may request for expedited examination of patent application in form 18A with fees as mentioned in the table. It is important to note that form 18A can only be filed through electronic mode and not physical mode. After filing request for expedited examination, there is  obligation on the controller to dispose off the patent application within three months from the earlier of two dates, first of them being the date of receipt of the last reply to the first statement of objections, and second date being the last date to put application in condition for grant under section 21. This time limit is not applicable in case of pre-grant opposition. The patent office deserves the right to limit the number of requests to be received for expedited examination during the year. It is beyond doubt that because of the difference in the scale of fees applicable to Start-Ups and small entities/ larges entities, advantages of expedited examination over non-expedited examination of patent applications, and appointment of facilitators, Start-Ups are feeling motivated to get their IPs registered.

About the Author: Swapnil Patil, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at: swapnil@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 441 other followers