PROCESS OF

FILING A PATENT
UNDER THE
PATENT ACT, 1970
GAURAB RANJAN MOHANTY
TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRODUCTION

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

PATENT FILING PROCESS

CASE LAWS

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS A PATENT?
WHY IS IT AN IMPORTANT INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY?
IMPORTANCE OF PATENTS IN FOSTERING
INNOVATION AND PROTECTING
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
INDIA'S EMERGING ROLE AS A HUB OF
INNOVATION
CHALLENGES IN THE CURRENT PATENT
FILING PROCESS
NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT AND
STREAMLINING THE PROCESS
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
IDENTIFY AND UNDERSTAND THE
CHALLENGES WITHIN INDIA'S CURRENT
PATENT FILING PROCEDURES.

PROPOSE PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO STREAMLINE
THE PROCESS.

EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF

THESE IMPROVEMENTS ON FOSTERING
INNOVATION AND STRENGTHENING IP
PROTECTION IN INDIA.
PATENT FILING PROCESS
Filing of application at the Patent Office
Filing of request for examination
Publication
Examination
Pre-grant Opposition
Grant of Patent
Post-grant Opposition
PATENT FILING PROCESS
FINDINGS
PROCEDURAL DELAYS - SIGNIFICANT DELAYS IN PROCESSING PATENT
APPLICATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE BOTTLENECKS - INEFFICIENT AND CUMBERSOME
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
COMPLEXITY - COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT-TO-UNDERSTAND APPLICATION
FORMS AND REQUIREMENTS
LACK OF USER-FRIENDLY EXPERIENCE - LACK OF SUPPORT AND
RESOURCES FOR APPLICANTS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Streamlining application forms and automating processes
Reducing processing times by increasing examiner capacity and adopting
efficient practices
Enhancing applicant experience through clear guidelines, user-friendly
platforms, and training programs
Embracing technology for automation and data analysis
Implementing transparency and promoting communication with
stakeholders
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd vs Cipla Ltd., Mumbai Central
Facts:
Roche sued Cipla for infringing patent on "Erlotinib Hydrochloride" used in cancer drug Tarceva.
Cipla's generic version was significantly cheaper.
Trial judge rejected Roche's request for injunction due to:Ongoing patent revocation proceedings
against Roche.
Public interest concerns over access to affordable medication.
Issues:
1. Patent infringement by Cipla.
2. Public interest considerations regarding injunction.
3. Roche suppressing patent information.
4. Evergreening concerns with polymorphic forms of the drug.
Judgment:
Trial judge's decision upheld.
Roche penalized for suppressing information.
Cipla's arguments regarding Form B and evergreening considered.
Roche's appeal dismissed due to ongoing trial.
Outcome:
Cipla wins, setting standards for patent infringement suits in India's evolving patent regime.
 Novartis v. Union of India
Facts:
Novartis sought patent for its drug 'Gleevec' in India.
7-year legal battle ensued.
Issues:
1. Was 'Gleevec' a new invention?
2. Did minor changes to existing drugs require proof of enhanced efficacy for patent?
3. Was this an attempt to "evergreen" existing patents?
Ratio:
Supreme Court:Mere discovery of an existing drug isn't a new invention.
Patents for incremental changes need proof of enhanced efficacy.
'Gleevec' lacked this requirement.
Ruling considered "evergreening" concerns.
Judgment:
Supreme Court rejected Novartis's patent application.
'Gleevec' wasn't a new invention nor did it show enhanced efficacy.
This landmark decision:Set precedent for interpreting patent law.
Aimed to prevent "evergreening" and ensure public access to essential medicines.
Had significant implications for public health and the balance between innovation and accessibility.