Monthly Archives: August 2014

Monkey Selfie-Legal Aspects

Background

Picture1

David J. Slater is a British wild life photographer from Gloucestershire who ventured to an Indonesian jungle in 2011 to take photos of extremely rare crested black macaque monkeys. As he narrated the story to the telegraph, he told “They were quite mischievous, jumping all over my equipment and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button.”A curious female grabbed his camera and snapped hundreds of shots. The best one out of the image was a selfie by a female macaque grinning toothily into the camera. Mr. Slater eventually retrieved it.

The images made headlines around the world, and were used on a number of websites, newspapers, magazines and television shows. Some of these pictures were posted on Wikimedia Commons[1], where images and videos are offered to the public for free. It was nominated for the best public domain photo on Wikimedia Commons.

In early 2012, Mr Slater officially asked Wikimedia to take down the image. It was removed, but was later added again by another user and has remained on Wikimedia Commons. Mr. Slater contends that he owns the copyright over the said photographs. He further states that he has suffered considerable expense to get these photographs as he traveled into the deep forests of Indonesia and spent three days following the animals with his camera equipment and even hired the guide who led him deep into the wilds, where the inquisitive monkey could grab his camera and start snapping.

He has also argued that he would hold the copyright to any images taken by an assistant. In effect, the smiling simian was his assistant that day in the jungle, he reasoned.

On the images’ discussion page one of the editors who uploaded the photos wrote that “This image was shot by a monkey who picked up a camera that a photographer had dropped” and was therefore not eligible for copyright.

Wikimedia argues that no one owns the photo — not itself, not Mr. Slater and not even the shutter-happy monkey and the image falls into the public domain. Mr. Tomasz Kozlowski, who is responsible for uploading the image to Wikimedia, told the Telegraph: “There has been some confusion over who owns the copyright. As Wikimedia is based in the US, we are guided by their law, which says that works that originate from a non-human source can’t claim copyright. The work did not originate from Mr Slater as by his own admission he did not take the picture, the monkey did. However monkeys can’t and don’t own copyrights.”

“he who takes the selfie owns the selfie”

This legal pseudo-doctrine encompasses two legal terms “authorship” and “taking/capturing”. Technically, there are three parties in this entire episode: a UK wildlife photographer, a US website and an Indonesian macaque. Thus, we have to look in to the Copyright laws on each of these countries to analyze the legal position of the impugned Copyright.

  • Author

Under US Copyright Law, the term ‘authorship’ implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being.[2] Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable.[3]

Under the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, the copyright in an artistic work such as a photograph is owned by the person who creates it.[4] And, under English law, “person” means human or corporate entity, but does not include animals.

Under Indonesian Copyright laws, the person deemed to be the Author.[5]

Mr. Slater can file a suit for Copyright infringement at of the countries where the photograph has been used without authorization. But none of the countries among UK, US and Indonesia have given recognition to the work created by animal. And it is an undisputed fact that Mr. Slater himself accepted that monkey clicked the picture. Hence, the claim of Wikimedia, that the impugned photograph falls within the ambit of Public domain, is more apt and suitable. It is worth noticing that Indonesia and Britain are the members of Berne and TRIPs conventions and hence, if the suit is filed in UK (as it is most likely) then the impugned photographs will be treated in the same manner as under UK copyright law.

  • Effect of Ownership of Camera

As the general rule of all Copyright law, it is formulated to protect the creators of artistic works and not the owners. The Copyright protection is given for incorporeal property and camera, being a movable property, is a corporeal property. Under US Copyright laws, mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright.[6]

Under an earlier copyright law – the UK Copyright Act 1956 – the author of a photograph was defined as the person who at the time the photograph was taken “owned the material on which it was taken but under Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, author, in relation to a work, means the person who creates it[7] and the author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it[8].In the instant case Mr. Slater is neither the author and hence he cannot be termed as owner of copyright under UK copyright laws.

Under Indonesian Copyright law, the strict interpretation of Article 7 read with Article 9 of the Indonesian Copyright Act leads to the conclusion that Indonesian government is the rightful owner of the impugned copyright. Article 7 of the Indonesian copyright law inter-alia says that if a work is ‘designed’ by one person and ‘worked out’ by another, then the one who designed the work gets the copyright. Going by the words of Mr. Slater, it was he who has setup the camera and it was the Macaque who clicked the photographs. In another words, the macaque has done the designing part while Mr. Slater just left his camera.

Further Article 9 inter-alia says if any legal entity claims right in a work without mentioning its author then such legal entity is deemed to be its author unless the contrary is proved. The impugned photographs are shot at Indonesian National Park. Thus, if Indonesian government, being a legal entity, claims the copyright under Article 9, then it would be just and proper under Indonesian Copyright laws unless the contrary is proved.

Image taken by an assistant

In the instant case, Mr.Slater also contended that the Macaque should be considered as the ‘assistant’ of him as Mr.Slater took all the pain behind setting up the perfect conditions for the selfie while the macaque only clicked the shutter. This claim of Mr.Slater would have been successful under the Copyright laws of UK and USA, if there would have existed any written employer-employee agreement or “work made for hire” agreement between them. If one go by the general laws of Agency, then employee is a person and thus an animal cannot hold an agency. A person can be owner of an animal like a bull in a bullock cart but the bull can’t be termed as an Agent.

  • Test of Agency

The best explanation for Cost-Benefit Internalization theory is based on the moral andeconomic principle that a person must bear the foreseeable consequences ofher voluntary actions. Thus, the principal must bear the consequences ofhiring an agent to the extent it is foreseeable that harm might result from theagent’s unauthorized acts.[9] A person may include artificial or natural person but in no way it will include animals. Although, sometimes, the owner of an animal may be held responsible for the act of his animal but won’t amount to agency.

Under UK Copyright laws, if an artistic work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary.[10] No agreement can be signed with or by an animal. Thus, an animal cannot be termed as an employee under sec. 11 of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and thus Macaque cannot hold the copyright.

  • “Work made for hire” Agreement

Section 101 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the U.S. Code) defines a “work made for hire”. A work made for hire[11] is either

  • a work created by an employee as part of his/her regular duties. A person is an employee if the hiring party has the right to control the manner and means by which the work is created; or
  • a specially commissioned work for certain categories of works and only if there is a written agreement between the employer and employee stating that the work is made for hire.

Thus, under US Copyright law also, an employee is a person. Therefore, a macaque cannot hold a work made for hire agreement under US copyright laws making the claim of Mr.Slater invalid.

Joint work

One possible way out for successfully claiming the copyright under laws of UK, USA and Indonesia might be that it is a joint work. According to the US Copyright Laws[12], the copyright of the work is initially held by the author of the work.The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work. Further, Section 101 provides that:

“[a] ‘joint work’ is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole”.

Therefore, in the present case, the court could find that the monkey selfies were works of joint authorship between the macaque and Mr.Slater. This would then allow Mr. Slater to exercise economic rights over the works of joint authorship between human and non-human authors.[13]

  • Liability of Wikimedia

As per, Digital Millennium Copyright Act enacted in 1998 stated that the Internet Service Provider (ISP) cannot be held liable for transmission of copyright infringing content except when such ISP remove such content after a proper notice regarding copyright violation has been received from the copyright owner. It is important to note that this notice unlike other notices must: be in writing, be signed by the copyright owner or the owner’s agent, identify the copyrighted work claimed to be infringed (or list of infringements from the same site) and identify the material that is infringing the work.

Under the UK Copyright law,[14] “work of joint authorship” means a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of each author is not distinct from that of the other author or authors. In the instant case, both the macaque and Mr.Slater have contributed for the said photograph. The setting up of camera and other instruments weighs as equal importance as clicking the shutter by Macaque. Hence, under UK copyright law, the said photograph can be termed as a work of Joint authorship.

Under Indonesian Copyright Laws[15], author include joint authors who have either inspired in creation of work based on several parameters such as intellectual ability, imagination, dexterity, skill or expertise. In the instant case, the dexterity of Mr. Slater cannot be questioned as he is a professional wildlife photographer but the things are not same for Macaque. There is grey area of discussion that whether a macaque possesses intellectual ability, imagination, skill or expertise. Not only that, we all know that macaque may possess skills such as climbing trees but can it be termed as Intellectual ability under Intellectual property laws. Thus, Indonesian law requires interpretation in this area of law.

Conclusion

Though various legal aspects of the case have been brought out and discussed above with reference to laws of respective countries, US copyright regulators have recently interpreted chapter 300 of US Copyright office and issued clarification on the subject matter without specifically mentioning the impugned image that has direct bearing on the case. The clarification in substance means that the subject selfie is not subject to copyright under US Copyright laws. The clarification states that in a classic case of Burrow-Giles Lithograohic Co. vs. Sarony[16], it has been stated that the copyright laws only protects “fruits of intellectual labour” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind”. Because the copyright law is limited to “original intellectual conceptions of the author”, the office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work.[17]In the instantcase,work was neither founded nor originated by either of Mr, Slater or Macaque. It may be termed as natural occurrence or better to say an accident. Thus, according to US copyright office, neither Mr.Slater nor macaque used any intellectual labour or creative power in this accidental episode, and therefore neither has claims to the copyright.

References

[1]Wikimedia Commons (or simply Commons) is an online repository of free-use images, sound, and other media files. It is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation.

[2]Copyright Compendium no.503.03(a)

[3]Copyright Compendium no. 202.02(b)

[4] Section 9, Chapter 48, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

[5] Article 5 of Law of the Republic of Indonesia

[6]U.S. Copyright Office · Library of Congress Copyright Basics circular 1 reviewed: 05⁄2012

[7] Section 9, Chapter 48, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

[8] Section 11 of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

[9] “A Theory of Agency Law” by Paula J. Dalley, Professor of Law, Oklahoma City University. University of Pittsburg Law Review,        [Vol. 72:495]

[10] Section 11(2) of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

[11] United States Copyright Office, Library of Congress available at http://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-author.html

[12]Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. no. 201(a).

[13] “British Photographer, Indonesian Macaque, American Website: Copyright Ownership Dispute Over Monkey Selfies” by Vnzomo in “Strathmore University’s Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law” available at https://cipitlawstrath.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/

[14] Section 10 of of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

[15] Article 1(2) LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

[16] 111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884).

[17] Page 8, Compendium : 300, “Copyrightable Authorship: What cane registered”available at http://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf.

About the Author: Mr. Ananya Pratap Singh, an intern at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys.

Bose Vs Beats- The Headphone War

There has been great buzz in patent world with the reported news on 25 Jul 2014 of suits filed by Bose Corps against Beats Electronics in US International Trade Commission (ITC) to block US imports of noise cancelling headphones made by Beats Electronics and a mirror suit in Federal District Court in Delaware, USA over the alleged patent infringement of its noise-cancelling technology used in Beats headphones. The patent infringement suit is being viewed by different entities in different perspectives. Is it just a fight by Bose Corporation to protect its IP rights? Or is it a proverbial  David versus Goliath fight– wherein a fifty year old giant Bose Corporation is using its financial might to subdue an eight year old start up company? The timing of this is also raising many eyebrows as this patent infringement suit is being linked to the news about acquisition of Beats Electronics by Apple in May 2014.

Bose and Beats are two of the leading players in the headphone industry and this suit can simply be about Bose Corporation’s desire and right to protect its intellectual property rights. The suit essentially is about noise reduction technology used for noise reduction methods in headphones. Bose contends that Beats Adaptive Noise Cancellation (ANC) technology being used in their headphones Beats Studio ® and Studio ® Wireless Headphones infringes on the Automatic Noise Reduction (ANR) technology which is protected by their following five patents:

  1. US 6717537
  2. US 8073150
  3. US 8073151
  4. US 8054992
  5. US 8345088

Bose in these suits have also informed about their huge investment over an extended period of time in research and development. Bose has further contended that for the last 50 years they have been investing extensively in research, development, engineering, and design of proprietary technologies and their implementations can be seen in their line of products such as noise cancelling headphones. Bose has further sought to be compensated for losses suffered and profit lost because of Beats using their patented technology.

High end Headphone market in 2013 has been valued at $ 1 billion with Beats reported having 60 % of this market share. Bose law suit therefore could be genuine desire to protect its market share especially in US and European markets.

In another perspective, this could be viewed as a fight between Bose and Apple where Bose by targeting Beats Electronics is actually targeting Apple. But this can be actually counter productive since Beats Electronic now with Apple’s financial backing can engage in a long drawn legal battle and take this fight to a legal and logical conclusion. Apple as reported in various news items has just acquired Beats Electronics for $ 3 billion and Apple can be expected to fight hard to protect its interests.

Bose Corporation’s first suit filed with International Trade Commission against Beats Electronics is to stop Beat Electronics from importing its headphones with noise cancelling technology to the United States from China. This action has been taken to prevent Beat Electronics from taking over the market and also to reduce the competition from Beat. Bose Corporation’s second suit against Beat Electronics is to stop them from infringing on their patented technologies.

Further, Bose is not leaving any stone unturned and is taking legal actions against Chinese companies also to make them stop from infringing on the patents held by Bose Corporation. One of the Bose representatives has said in a statement “We are committed to protecting our investment and our customers and defending the patent we own”.

As Apple is already involved in a number of big patent battles especially with Samsung and is one of the top companies with most Patent infringement cases in USA, it will be interesting to see how Apple / Beats are going to react to this and how they are going to defend themselves against this law suit. We have to wait for the decision from the court to see if Beat will be able to defend themselves or if they will prefer the case to get the law suits settled outside the court as was done recently between Apple and Samsung.

Ultimately only legal merits will be considered for outcome of this suit but it will be interesting and fruitful to watch how these big companies defend themselves as the precedent set with these suits could help in formulating future business strategies not only for business entities involved in these law suits but also other business houses.

About the Author: Mr Paras Khurana, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana and can be reached at: paras@khuranaandkhurana.com

Vacation of injunction upon invalidation of patent by USPTO ePlus. v. Lawson Software

In a recent judgment, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 25, 2014, vacated the U.S. District Court’s decision on injunction and contempt orders against Lawson Software and instructed the lower court to dismiss the patent litigation case brought by ePlus, Inc. This decision mainly pertains totwo main issues. Firstly, whether an injunction can continue after the USPTO has cancelled the only claim on which the injunction was based. Secondly, whether the civil contempt remedies based on violation of an injunction are appropriate when the injunction itself has been overturned on direct appeal. The decision can be found here.

 Background of the case:

 ePlus, Inc.,an IT assets selling and financing company, and assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,023,683 (”683 patent hereinafter) and 6,505,172 (”172 patent hereinafter), sued Lawson Software, Inc. (“Lawson”) for infringementin the year 2009 in a district court. The district court found two of the asserted system claims and three of the asserted method claims not invalid, and a jury found that Lawson infringed those claims. The defendant then appealed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) where it was decided that the two asserted system claims (claim 1 of the ′172 patent and claim 3 of the ′683 patent) were invalid, and that two of the three asserted method claims (claims 28 and 29 of the ′683 patent) were not infringed.

It further affirmed infringement of method claim 26. So CAFC remanded the district court to consider what changes are required to the terms of the injunction, consistent with the opinion. On remand, in addition to reconsidering the injunction, the district court also instituted contempt proceedings for the reason that Lawson had redesigned its software against which the injunction order was passed. The district court held Lawson in contempt for violating the injunction, finding that the redesigned products were no more than colorably different.The court ordered Lawson to pay a compensatory fine of $18,167,950 and coercive daily fines of $62,362 until it could show compliance with the injunction.Thus being aggrieved by such order, Lawson appealed the district court’s modified injunction and contempt order in CAFC.In the meantime during proceeding of validity of the said patent claim, USPTO held Claim 26 as invalid during reexamination procedure. Armed with UPSTO decision the defendant Lawson Inc. further appealed in CAFC against the decision given by district court on injunction and contempt of court.

 Decisions given by CAFC

Issue 1

Whether the district court’s modified injunction against Lawson must be set aside now that the USPTO has cancelled the patent claim on which it is based.

 It is well established principle of law that an injunction must be set aside when the legal basis for it has ceased to exist.Citing case of Mendenhall v. Barber–Greene Co. the court recognized that upholding injunctions would be “anomalous in the extreme in connection with patents this court has just held invalid.” Under these authorities, there is no longer any legal basis to enjoin Lawson’s conduct based on rights that claim 26 of the ′683 patent previously conferred as those rights have ceased to exist. Since USPTO found claim 26 invalid, claim 26 no longer confered any rights that support an injunction against infringement. Hence cancellation of claim 26 by the USPTO required vacation of the injunction.

 Issue 2

Whether the civil contempt remedies based on the violation of an injunction are appropriate when the injunction has been overturned on direct appeal?

 It was held that the case is not distinguishable on the ground that the injunction has been set aside as the result of the USPTO proceeding rather than a court judgment. Citing the case of Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc. whereit was held that a non-final money judgment of damages for infringement must be set aside where the judgment rested on a patent claim that the USPTO later cancelled. It was held that the cancellation of a patent requires that non-final judgments be set aside because the “cancelled claims are void ab initio,” Similarly, relying on these underlined principle the civil contempt sanctions in this case must be set aside.

 There would not have been any need to decide about the survival of the civil contempt sanctions in case the injunction had been final at the time the district court imposed civil contempt sanctions. Pertinently, the injunction here was not final even though claim 26 had been held infringed. The court unanimously held in Fresenius that even if the court has rejected an invalidity defense to infringement, an “intervening decision invalidating the patents unquestionably applies” as long as “the judgment in [the present] litigation is not final.” In Fresenius, the federal court had previously reviewed the district court’s rulings on infringement and invalidity and remanded the case to the district court to determine the scope of damages and injunctive relief. When reviewing the judgment reached by the district court on remand, the federal court held that the original district court judgment, while “final for purposes of appeal was not sufficiently final to preclude application of the intervening judgment” that led to the cancellation of the patent. It was concluded that the compensatory award for the violation of the injunction must be set aside in light of the cancellation of claim 26. Finally the CAFC remanded the lower court with instruction to dismiss.

 Conclusion:

Thus it can be concluded that the decision is based on the  valid principles of law that when the main subject matter i.e. Claim 26 is itself void ab initio then the order of injunction and the civil contempt to protect such claim cannot exist or say continue to exist and needed to be set aside. Thus the validity of any patent claims per se plays utmost importance in order to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties to the dispute.

About the Author: Mr Sitanshu singh, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana and can be reached at:  sitanshu@khuranaandkhurana.com

Revised Draft Guidelines for Examination of Pharma Patent Applications

We have earlier reported the release of Draft Guidelines for Examination of Pharma Patent Applications. The Patent office has now released revised draft guidelines and in continuation of our earlier article here, we explain herein what those revisions are and impact of the guidelines in general. The revised guidelines are available here.

The revised guidelines of 12th August 2014 are not much different from the earlier guidelines of 28th February 2014 with only some clarity provided at certain places. For example, the scope of the guidelines is clarified by inserting that “Examiners are requested to examine applications on a case-to-case basis, without being prejudiced by the specific illustrations being provided herein.”  Some other clarifications/changes include:

  1. On carrying out a prior art search for pharmaceutical products, if the applicant does not inform the INN even on the request, the examiner should try to find out the INN and use the same in the search strategy.
  2. Further clarity on identification of prior art documents pertaining to Markush formula is provided wherein it is emphasized that “If a markush formula covers innumerable compounds and certain other compounds fall within another prior art, in such cases all these prior art documents are to be cited. A generic disclosure in the prior art may not necessarily take away the novelty of a specific disclosure. A specific disclosure in the prior art takes away the novelty of a generic disclosure”
  3. On the discussion of “skilled person” in section 8.6, the revised guidelines add new IPAB order on Enercon vs alloys Wobbens, ‘We do not intend to visualize a person who has super skills, but we do not think we should make this person skilled in the art to be incapable of carrying out anything but basic instructions”.
  4. On sufficiency of disclosure requirements pertaining to biological materials, the new guidelines add disclosure requirements pertaining to depositing the material to an International Depository Authority (IDA) under the Budapest Treaty.

There are some other minor changes for clarity purposes for example:

  1. Deletion of the following examples: “2) Use of compound A in the process of preparing B. and 3) Use of compound A in the composition of ————– ” from illustrations depicting use claims (non-product and non-process claims)
  2. Deletion of the following one illustration on implicit disclosure: “For example, the invention claims halide salts of a compound whereas the prior art teaches the chloride salts of the same compound but does not explicitly disclose the other halide salts. However, it may be noted that the question of implicit disclosure is often a mixed issue of novelty and inventive step.
  3. Deletion of a following sentence from “8.8 Reasonable expectation of success”:In other words enhanced effects cannot be adduced as evidence of inventive step if they emerge from obvious tests.
  4. Addition of a new illustrative example for section 3(j).
  5. Deletion of one paragraph (para 11.15 in earlier version) on sufficiency of description
  6. Addition of Structures for clarity in the illustrative example for Unity of invention in para 12.13

These guidelines are released with an objective to provide clarity and understanding on various patentability criteria to the Examiners/Controllers so that a uniform standard of examination can be achieved in pharmaceutical inventions. There have been several instances where certain type of claims are allowed by one examiner and rejected by others. For example, even though it is statutorily mentioned that method of treatment claims are not patentable under section 3(i) but still such claims are sometimes filed as use claims for example as “use of compound X in treatment of disease Y…” or compound claims for example as “compound X for use in treatment of disease Y..” which claims have been allowed by some Examiners in the past. These guidelines now clarify that only products or processes will be patentable and no such use claims will be patentable. This strives to provide much needed uniformity in examination standards. Another highlight of the guidelines is that these include recent IPAB and court decisions for providing further clarity. For example, section 3d has been well explained w.r.t Supreme Court’s Novartis decision. Obviousness criteria is well explained giving various illustrations, particularly defining “skilled person”, “reasonable expectation of success” “motivation” w.r.t various IPAB/court decisions. Product by process claims are clearly defined explaining that they are patentable only when the product is novel and non-obvious. Claims containing Markush structures are specifically well-explained w.r.t various patentability criteria. Since all these explanations available in these guidelines on various types of pharmaceutical claims are not explicitly present in the Patent Act, so releasing these guidelines should prove to be a boon to Examiners/Controllers especially in view of inconsistent examination standards seen in the past.

In sum, these guidelines will help Examiners establishing patentability of pharmaceutical inventions with much ease and clarity now avoiding inconsistency in examination standards.

Two Days International Symposium for R&D Scientists and IP Practitioners

Two Days International Symposium for R&D Scientists and IP Practitioners

We are happy to inform you all that IIPRD and Khurana & Khurana, in association with Sughrue Mion, PLLC, (US) is holding an International Patent Symposium covering all major and relevant Pharmaceutical/Biotechnology Related Patent issues in the month of September, 2014 in India.

The Two-Days International Symposium would be covering Strategies for Managing Pharma, Biotech & Chemical Patent Portfolios in US & India and is being held from 22 -23’rd September 2014 at Hotel Hilton, Mumbai and 24-25’th September 2014 at Hotel Taj Banjara, Hyderabad.

About the Speakers: The speakers are a unique gathering of Patent Attorneys, Legal Counsels, who have extensive years of experience in their professional fields. These Speakers will put across to the delegates a real insight of Patent Laws & Practices, and Commercial perspectives as prevalent and practiced in United States. The speakers include:

  • Mr. Chid Iyer, Partner at Sughrue Mion PLLC, USA
  • Mr. Michael R. Dzwonczyk, Partner at Sughrue Mion PLLC, USA
  • Ms. Azy S. Kokabi, Associate at Sughrue Mion PLLC, USA
  • Mr. Travis Ribar, Associate at Sughrue Mion PLLC, USA
  • Ms. Deb Sengupta, Ph.D., Associate at Sughrue Mion PLLC, USA

Please see the complete details including Program Schedule, Topics, Speakers Profiles etc. in a brochure available over here

Patent Registration Process in India

With a significantly increasing number of Individual Inventors and Small/Medium Sized Clients regularly asking on Patent Registration Process in India, this article is an effort by our Intern, Ananya Singh, to come up with a quick article on Patent Registration Process in India. We hope that a link to the article can give desired clarity on the procedure.

A patent is an exclusive right granted by a Government for a limited period of time within a particular territory to an inventor or assignee to exclude others from making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing an invention, in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention. An invention is said to be patentable if it satisfies the following three criteria:

  • Novelty: The invention has to be new and cannot be part of the “prior state of art”. This prior art refers to everything that has been published, presented or disclosed to the public (example on a website, newspaper or in any research article), as on the date of filing for the patent.
  • Inventiveness (Non-obviousness): An Inventive step means a feature of an invention that involves technical advancement as compared to the existing knowledge and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.

An invention cannot be considered to have an inventive step if a non-inventive mind would have thought of the invention by combining the teachings of different documents that are available to the public.

  • Utility/Industrial Application: An invention must be capable of being produced or used in some kind of industry. It has to take the form of device or apparatus, a product such as some new material or an industrial process. An invention is certified for patentability, if it:
    • Can be manufactured
    • Can be used in at least one field of activity
    • Can be reproduced with the same features/ properties as many times as necessary

TYPES OF PATENT APPLICATIONS 

  1. Provisional Application

Provisional Application is a temporary application filed with a Patent      Office to claim a “Priority Date” and when an invention is not complete in all aspects. This application is extremely helpful since it is relatively inexpensive to prepare and file, enables the inventor to study the feasibility of the invention in terms of potential markets, distributors, licensees. However the complete application needs to be filed within 12 months or else it will be treated as abandoned.

  1. Complete Application

  A patent application containing the complete specification and claims of the invention is called a complete application and this can be filed directly if the invention is complete in all aspects.

  1. Convention Application

When an applicant files the application for a patent, claiming a priority date based on the same or substantially similar application filed in one or more of the convention countries, it is called a convention application. In order to get convention status, an applicant should file the application in the Indian Patent Office within twelve months from the date of first filing of a similar application in the convention country.  

  1. Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) – International Application

  It is an international agreement for filing patent applications having effect in up to 138 countries. PCT does not provide grant of an international patent, the treaty:

  • Simplifies and delays the process and expenses of filing patent applications if one wishes to file in multiple countries.
  • Also the applicant needs to file just a single application with one receiving patent office in order to simultaneously seek a patent in multiple (up to 138 countries) across the globe.

The application is to be filed in English language within 12 months from the date of filing in India.

  1. PCT-National Phase Application

An international application made according to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) being the first application, can enter the national phase in India within 31 months from the international filing date or priority date (whichever is earlier). This application filed before the Controller in the Indian Patent Office claiming the priority and international filing date is called PCT National Phase application. The filing date of the application shall be the international filing date accorded under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

FILING

A patent application shall be filed on Form-1 along with Provisional/ Complete Specification, with the prescribed fee as given in First Schedule at an appropriate Patent office in India in accordance with the jurisdiction. An application filed with provisional specification, disclosing the essence of the nature of the invention helps to register the priority by the applicant. The provisional application must be followed by a complete application otherwise the application gets abandoned.   Patent (Amendment) Rules 2014 has introduced a new category of applicant as “small entity”. Small entity, for Indian applicant, is defined as an enterprise engaged in the manufacture or production of goods, an enterprise where the investment in plant and machinery does not exceed the limit specified for a medium enterprise under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006. A new Form 28 has been introduced which needs to be filed by a small entity applicant and must be accompanied by proof of registration under The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006). The prescribed fees under different heads are given below:

(a) E-filing

Particulars Individual Small Entity Other than Small Entity
For Filing Patent Application 1600 4000 8000
For each sheet of Specification in addition to 30 pages 160 400 800
For each claim in addition to 10 claim. 320 800 1600

(b) Physical Filing  

Particulars Individual Small Entity Other than Small Entity
For Filing Patent Application   1760 4400 8800
For each sheet of Specification in addition to 30 pages   176 440 880
  For each claim in addition to 10 claim   352 880 1760

Documents can be e-filed through the online portal of the patent office or manually in the patent office having jurisdiction selected from Kolkata (head office), Delhi, Mumbai, or Chennai. More information for filing online application is available on the website of Patent Office i.e. www.ipindia.nic.in

PUBLICATION

A patent application will be published automatically in the official journal after expiry of 18 months from date of filing or date of priority of the application(whichever is earlier) containing title, abstract, application no, and name of applicant and inventor. The Patent office Journal is freely available on patent office site i.e. www.ipindia.nic.in.   There is also a provision for early publication of an Indian patent application by filing a formal request. The prescribed fees for early publication are as follows:      

(a) E-filing

Particulars Individual Small Entity Other than Small Entity
Application for request for Publication 2500 6250 12500

 (b) Physical Filing

Particulars Individual Small Entity Other than Small Entity
Application for request for Publication 2750 6875 13750 

Pre- Grant OPPOSITION

The Pre-Grant opposition can be filed by any person contesting the matter disclosed in the patent application. There is no fees applicable for filing pre-grant opposition.

EXAMINATION

The Process of examination starts with filing a request for examination. The request for examination has to be made within 48 months from the date of priority or filing whichever is earlier. Once the request is filed, the Patent Office will issue the First Examination Report (FER). The Applicant must respond to the objections (if any) raised by the Examiner and place the application in order for grant within 12 months from the date of issue of the FER. The prescribed fees under different heads are given below:  

(a) E-filing

Particulars Individual Small Entity Other than Small Entity
Express request of examination of application for patent 4000 10000 20000
Particulars Individual Small Entity Other than Small Entity
Request of examination of International Application for patent 5600 14000 28000

(b) Physical Filing

Particulars Individual Small Entity Other than Small Entity
Request of examination of application for patent 4400 11000 22000
Particulars Individual Small Entity Other than Small Entity
Request of examination of International Application for patent 6160 15400 30800

Post-Grant Opposition

Post grant opposition may be filed at any time after the grant of patent within one year from the date of publication of the patent. Under this provision any person having any interest in the related field. The post grant opposition has to be filed in the prescribed form 7 along with prescribed fees of Rs. 2400 for natural person, Rs.6000 for small entity and 12,000 for large entity.

(a) E-filing

Particulars Individual Small Entity Other than Small Entity
Notice of Opposition (Post-grant opposition) 2400 6000 12000

(b) Physical Filing

Particulars Individual Small Entity Other than Small Entity
Notice of Opposition (Post-grant opposition) 2640 6600 13200

GRANT

The order of grant is given if all the requirements of the Patent Act are complied. Term of every patent in India is 20 years from the date of first filing of patent application (it can be either from date of filling or priority date, whichever is earlier). However, in case of PCT National phase applications, the term of 20 years begins from International filing date.

RENEWAL

After the grant of patent, every patentee has to maintain the patent by paying renewal fee every year as prescribed in the schedule I. For first two years, there is no renewal fee.  The renewal fee is payable from 3rd year onwards.  In case the renewal fee is not paid the patent will be cease.

Flow chart

Amendment in Trade Mark Fees

Recently, Controller General of Patents Design and Trade Marks, Mr. Chaitanya Prasad,has issued a Public Notice on August 7, 2014, wherein it has been put forth that, from August 1, 2014,Official Fees for filing a new Trade Mark application in one class has been increased from Rs. 3500/- to Rs. 4000/-. It was also mentioned that the fee for expedited examination has also been increased upto Rs. 20,000/-. The notification can be seen here.

All the Applicants/ Agents who have filed a new Trade Mark application or have requested for expedited examination are required to submit the deficiency of Rs. 500/- or Rs. 2,500/- before September 30, 2014.

It was further clarified that until and unless the deficiency is not cleared, the Registrar would not act on the application. And in case the deficiency is paid after September 30, 2014 the filing date would shift to the date on which balance fee has been paid.

It is to be noted that The Trade Mark Rules of 2002 have been amended twice i.e. 2010 and 2013.

We have moved to a New Office Location!

We are very happy to announce that we have recently moved our office location to a new, much bigger space.

After having been at our previous location since 2007, the new office will help accommodate the needs of Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and IIPRD’s growing clientele.

Our new office is significantly larger, total area of 800 square meters, and it gives our staff a greatly improved working environment, as well as room for continued expansion. The three-story office building features office space for more than 150 staff, enhanced security and document storage measures, conference halls, large dining hall with in-house complementary lunch provision to the staff.

We feel very fortunate and proud at the same time that we are able to build this space in just 6 years of our start of operations. This development will enable us to accommodate our clients more effectively and efficiently.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who has contributed to the success of the firm. The combined support from our colleagues and clients has been central to our stability and growth.

Our new office is located at:

E-13, UPSIDC-Site-IV (Behind Grand Venice), Kasna Road, Greater Noida, 201310, National Capital Region-Delhi, India.

We will continue to use the present Telephone and facsimile, which are:

Tel: +91 120 2342010, 4296878 Fax: +91 120 2342011

We are looking forward to seeing you at our new office soon.