Patent filing trend in India

Patent filings at the Indian patent office [IPO] have been increasing at a rate of about 25% for the
past 8 years, it is evident the major patent filings are contributed by foreign applicants as clearly
shown below graph.
Patent filings by the Indian applicants in every year are growing only with a rate of about 11.6%,
where as foreign applicant filing growing at a rate of about 31.7%. The patent filed by the Indian
firms lag behind substantially as compared to foreign counterparts. The trend in patent filing by
the Indian companies is not good signal to advance our Indian economy.
Source: Annual reports of the Indian Patent Office

Patent Application filing in Indian Patent Office

An application for a patent can be filed by the true and first inventor. The assignee or legal representative
of the inventor can also file it. It can be filed individually or jointly. If an application is filed by the assignee,
proof of assignment has to be submitted along with the application. The applicant can be national of any
country.

An application can be filed directly at the Indian Patent Office or via the Patent Cooperation Treaty having
a corresponding Indian application or in the form of a Conventional application. A patent application can
be filed at any of the four patent offices in India. Patent Offices are located at Kolkata, New Delhi,
Chennai and Mumbai.

Every application filed directly at Indian Patent Office shall be accompanied by a provisional or complete
specification. In case of PCT or Convention application, applicant can file only the complete specification.
Provisional applications are generally filed at a stage where some experimentation is required to perfect
the invention. A complete specification has to be filed within 12 months extendable to 15 months from the
date of filing of the provisional specification. If an application is filed with a complete specification, the
Controller on request has the power to convert the complete specification into a provisional one. If a
complete specification follows a provisional specification, the controller on request can post date the date
of filing to the date of complete specification. Filing of a provisional specification allows the applicant to
get an early application date.

Provisional Specification shall contain:

a) Title
b) Written Description
c) Drawings, if necessary
d) Sample or model if required

The complete specification shall contain:

a) Title
b) Abstract
c) Written Description
d) Drawings (where necessary)
e) Sample or Model (if required by the examiner)
f) Enablement and Best Mode
g) Claims
h) Deposit (Microorganisms)

a) Title
Title is generally a word or a phrase indicating the content of the invention.

b) Abstract
It is a short paragraph describing the invention in a precise manner.

c) Written Description
This is an important part of the specification. It contains the complete and elaborate description of the
invention. Written Description generally starts with a background of the invention. It explains the invention
clearly and comprehensively, with the help of examples, drawings and models, where and when required.

d) Drawings
The written description might be supplemented with clearly labeled drawings, where and when required.

e) Samples or Models
On initiative of the inventor or when required by the patent examiner samples or models might be
submitted to the patent office. Such samples or models will provide a better understanding of the
invention.
f) Enablement and Best Mode
The applicant has to enable his invention in order to allow a person with ordinary skill in the art to make
and work the invention. He should not only enable, but also describe the best mode of carrying out the
invention.

g) Claims
Claims define the metes and bounds of the invention. They are the most important elements in a
specification.

h) Deposit
If an invention involves microorganisms, which cannot be described by writing, a sample of the
microorganism has to be deposited at an internationally recognized depository. There is an internationally
recognized depository at Chandigarh, in India

A provisional specification cannot be filed if an application has been filed in a foreign country, before the
Indian filing, and if the application is a PCT application. A complete specification has to be filed within
twelve months of filing the provisional specification. Each specification should contain only one invention.
If there is more than one invention in a specification, separate applications have to be filed for each
invention. If an Indian application has corresponding foreign applications, the applicant has to keep the
Controller informed of the status of the foreign applications.
The following documents have to be submitted at the time of filing a patent application:
a. Form 1 - Application for the grant of patent
b. Form 2 - Provisional or Complete Specification
c. Form 3 - Statement and undertaking by the applicant
d. Form 5 - Declaration as to Inventorship
e. Form 26 - Authorization of patent agent or any other person.
Hope you have learned the patent filing procedure in India.

PCT Filing Trends

After India became a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) contracting state on 7 December 1998, since
when it has been possible to designate India in international patent applications filed via the PCT route,
and since 1999 the number of PCT filing shown in the graph reflects increase trend, however when we
compare with other countries like china, India far behind them in filing PCT Application.

In WIPO, you can get free publications which would be really helpful for those who want to file & protect
their patent in Abroad. Following are some of the publications available, which will take through the basis
of invention, patent, patent search, filing patent etc.,

International Patent Filings Dip in 2009

International patent filings under WIPO's Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) fell by 4.5% in 2009 with
sharper than average declines experienced by some industrialized countries and growth in a number of
East Asian countries. Provisional data indicates that 155,900international patent applications were filed in
2009 as compared to the nearly 164,000 applications filed in 2008.

"The decline in PCT filings is not as sharp as originally anticipated – last year's results bring us back to
just under 2007 levels, when 159,886 international applications were filed," said WIPO Director General
Francis Gurry. "Interestingly, the rate of decline in international filings is lower than that experienced in
some national contexts. This is an indication of a broad recognition that it makes good business sense,
whatever the economic conditions, to continue to protect commercially valuable technologies
internationally."

International patent filings in a number of East Asian countries continued to enjoy positive growth in spite
of the challenging global economic conditions. Japan, the second largest user of the PCT, experienced a
3.6% rate of growth with 29,827 applications; the Republic of Korea (ROK), ranked fourth largest user of
the system, experienced 2.1% growth with 8,066 applications; and China became the fifth largest PCT
user with a strong growth rate of 29.7%, representing some 7,946 international applications.

International patent filings experienced a sharper than average decline in a number of industrialized
countries. For example, the filing rate dropped by 11.4% in the USA and by 11.2% in Germany in 2009.
Declines were also experienced in the United Kingdom (-3.5%), Switzerland (-1.6%), Sweden (-11.3%),
Italy (-5.8%), Canada (-11.7%), Finland (-2.2%), Australia (-7.5%) and Israel (-17.2%).

The United States of America (USA) maintained its top ranking (annex 2), filing just under a third of all
international applications in 2009 (45,790), followed by Japan (+3.6%, 29,827 applications), Germany (-
11.2% or 16,736 applications), ROK (+2.1%, 8,066 applications), China (29.7%, 7,946 applications),
France (+1.6%, 7166 applications), United Kingdom (-3.5% or 5,320 applications), the Netherlands
(+3.0% or 4,471 applications), Switzerland (-1.6% or 3,688 applications) and Sweden (-11.3% or 3,667
applications).
Slowdown in Patent Filing and Grants
World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO] released report on World Intellectual Property Indicators
2009, in which indicates slow down in the patent filing and grants growth rate.

In 2007, patent filing increased 3.7% compared to a 5.2% increase in the previous year. Despite this
slowdown, around 1.85 million applications were filed across the world in 2007. This figures show the
early effects of the global economic downturn on patent filing and the available data for 2008 point toward
a further slowdown in patent filing.

The majority of patent filing are from residents of developed countries and there is a strong relationship
between the patent filings and the level of GDP and investment in research and development. China,
Japan and the US are the top three ranked countries in terms of GDP and R&D. In 2007, about 59.2% of
world patent filing were filed in these three countries alone. Patent offices of India, Brazil and Mexico, also
received a significant number of filings. However, the majority of filing received by these offices originated
from non-resident applicants.

The substantial increase in filings by the residents of China and the Republic of Korea over the past few
years has reduced the gap between these two countries on the one hand and Japan and the US on the
other. In 2007, China and the Republic of Korea had more resident applications per GDP or R&D
expenditure than the US.

China will surpass Japan and US in Patenting

Excerpted article: The Scientific business of Thomson Reuters today published World IP Today:
"Patented in China -- The Present and Future State of Innovation in China" which looks at current patent
trends and speculates how the world of patent information will look in five years. Patent volumes and
trends are explored, as well as the underlying causes of increased innovation in China, including
economic and government policy factors.

"Findings from the report indicate that China's economy has shifted focus, moving away from traditional
agriculture and manufacturing toward innovation-oriented activities," said Bob Stembridge, co-author of
World IP Today and manager, customer relations, the Scientific business of Thomson Reuters. "In
essence, China has increased its overall research and development budget for the country, introduced
tax breaks and monetary incentives to increase indigenous innovation and continued investing in the
nation's academic institutions, which have become a driving force behind Chinese patenting."

According to a 2006 report by the World Intellectual Property Organization(1), the patent offices of the
U.S., Japan, Europe (EPO), Republic of Korea and China account for 75% of all patents filed and 74% of
patents granted worldwide. An analysis of patent volumes over the last five years from these five major
offices shows that inventions from China have been growing at a faster rate than any other region.
China's shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a knowledge-based one requires foreign
companies to re-examine their global IP strategies.
"China has become the third largest patent office in the world in a very short space of time and, if
current trends continue, will dominate the patent information landscape by 2012," said Dr. Eve
Zhou, co-author of the report and member of the Intellectual Property Consulting Services group at the
Scientific business of Thomson Reuters. "Although the predictions of future patent application volume by
the five major patent offices are purely mathematical exercises, the inescapable fact is that Chinese
patents are here to stay and will continue to evolve in prominence."

Patenting Landscape in India

In recent years, India has witnessed rapid changes in its patenting landscape as a result of the growing economic
activity and reforms (related to patents). In May 2008, Evalueserve investigated the patenting landscape in India,
focusing on the patent applications published over 2005–07. The present study includes data for 2008 and analyses
the latest trends and developments in the Indian patent landscape.

Evalueserve has identified the top patent filers at the IPO for the past four years by analysing 112,515 patent
applications published by the IPO during the period January 2005 to December 2008.

The top 25 filers list includes 11 corporations from the electronics and telecom domain, and 8 from the
pharmaceuticals and chemicals domain. It is interesting to note that Qualcomm has emerged as the top filer for both
2007 and 2008. During the period 2005–08, Qualcomm had 2,068 published applications at the IPO, which
constitutes about 63% of its filing with the USPTO and 45% of its PCT filings during the same period. This shows
how seriously Qualcomm protects its innovations in India, which is the world’s fastest-growing mobile market,
growing at the rate 18% annually . In addition, General Motors, Wockhardt, General Electric, Tata Group, LG
Electronics, Research in Motion, 3M, Alcatel-Lucent and Sony Ericsson have significantly improved their rankings.
In contrast, the rankings of Philips, Bayer, Microsoft and AstraZeneca have dropped marginally.

Patenting Landscape in India

In recent years, India has witnessed rapid changes in its patenting landscape as a result of the growing economic
activity and reforms (related to patents). In May 2008, Evalueserve investigated the patenting landscape in India,
focusing on the patent applications published over 2005–07. The present study includes data for 2008 and analyses
the latest trends and developments in the Indian patent landscape.

Evalueserve has identified the top patent filers at the IPO for the past four years by analysing 112,515 patent
applications published by the IPO during the period January 2005 to December 2008.

The top 25 filers list includes 11 corporations from the electronics and telecom domain, and 8 from the
pharmaceuticals and chemicals domain. It is interesting to note that Qualcomm has emerged as the top filer for both
2007 and 2008. During the period 2005–08, Qualcomm had 2,068 published applications at the IPO, which
constitutes about 63% of its filing with the USPTO and 45% of its PCT filings during the same period. This shows
how seriously Qualcomm protects its innovations in India, which is the world’s fastest-growing mobile market,
growing at the rate 18% annually . In addition, General Motors, Wockhardt, General Electric, Tata Group, LG
Electronics, Research in Motion, 3M, Alcatel-Lucent and Sony Ericsson have significantly improved their rankings.
In contrast, the rankings of Philips, Bayer, Microsoft and AstraZeneca have dropped marginally.

Patent granting procedure in India

What is not patentable in India?

Most of us might know about patentability requirement in India, i.e, the invention should be
novel, inventive and capable of industrial applicable. However, we cannot get patent for all the
inventions even though which meets all the above criteria, and section (3) and (4) under patent
act has long list of area which are not patentable in India. This section has been obstacle for not
less than 50,000 inventions which are eligible for registering patent. Last year, department of
industrial policy and promotion (DIPP) proposed to scrap the section 3(d), and it may be
implemented sooner or later.

Below is the recap of the areas which all are not patentable as per section (3) and (4).
 • An invention which is frivolous or which claims anything obvious or contrary to the well
established natural law. An invention, the primary or intended use of which would be
contrary to law or morality or injurious to public health
• A discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method
• A mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use
of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new
product or employs at least one new reactant

• A substance obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of the properties
of the components thereof or a process for producing such substance
• A mere arrangement or re-arrangement or duplication of a known device each functioning
independently of one another in its own way
• A method or process of testing applicable during the process of manufacture for rendering the
machine, apparatus or other equipment more efficient for the improvement or restoration of
the existing machine, apparatus or other equipment or for the improvement or control of
manufacturer
• A method of agriculture or horticulture

• A method or process for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic or other treatment of
human beings or any process for a similar treatment of animals or plants to render them
free of disease or to increase their economic value or that of their products

• An invention relating to atomic energy falling under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962
Circular by the Controller General of Patents, Design and
Trademarks
The Controller General of Patents, Design and Trademarks (CGPDTM) has issued circular to
comply the legal formalities on IP Prosecution. The CGPDTM has observed some people are
prosecuting IP applications who are not authorized to prosecute the applications. And also he
said that such kind of activities is illegal and may foresee the litigation among business entities.
The following instance needs special attention:
1. Bonafide of the person prosecuting the application is not ascertained by the IP officials
 2. Communications are entertained from person not authorized by law.
3. Unauthorised person being engaged for discussion and meeting by officials in thei
respective offices.
4. Applications are processed based on Power of Attorney executed by persons who are not
duly authorised by the applicant/firm/company.
Based on the following instructions given by the CGPDTM, let us hope that the unauthorized
persons will not be entertained in prosecuting the IP applications.
All the IP officials are hereby instructed to ensure the bonafide of the persons who prosecute the
applications before processing.
a) Officials are directed not to entertain any communication from unauthorized persons.
b) It has to be ensured that the Power of Attorney accompanying the application is
executed by authorized persons only.
c) The Technical Head who is the public face of the concerted IP office or the official
attached to him only shall meet the general public or any other interested persons on
general issues. Technical heads may spare 2 hrs durations on all working days for such
meeting with general public.
http://indiapatents.blogspot.com/2010/12/pct-filing-trends.html

IPCalculus is an Intellectual Property research & analytical consulting firm based in India, providing
customized services in the form of Patent landscape analysis, Patent portfolio analysis, Patent searches
(Prior-art, Patentability/Novelty, Invalidation, Infringement, and Freedom to Operate), Patent alert and
monitoring, Legal status updates, Trend analysis, Patent to Product mapping and Patent licensing.

Our expertise lies in generating valuable IP intelligence by analyzing patent, non-patent, product, clinical
trial, regulatory filing, premarket approval, recalls and other technical & competitive information. Our
customized, interactive, dynamic & collaborative reporting system "IP Analytics Manager" integrate
patent, non-patent, product, clinical trial, regulatory filing, premarket approval, recalls and other technical
& competitive information. We provide consistent high quality IP research & analytical services in the field
of medical devices, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, life sciences, electronics, telecommunications,
chemistry, mechanical and many more.

Specialties
IP research & analytics, Business & Competitive intelligence solutions, Knowledge
management

www.patentoffice.nic.in

www.sipogov.cn

ipo.gov.in

kirpis.gov.kr
tipo.gov.tw

www.woodwu.com.tw/english/data/law-patent.htm

www.epo.org/patents/patent-information/east-asian/helpdesk/china.html

china-taipei

india

eastasian/helpdesk/trends.html.