Growing efficiency of Patent Prosecution in India – Comparative Study (2015 through 2017)

Patents have been a very functional and important aspect of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). They are also one of the oldest laws of IPR that have been prevalent in India since 1856. However, after lot of repeals and amendments, the final draft was introduced as Patent Act, 1970, which came into force in 1972. This Act and Patent Rules also went through a lot of amendments, the last amendment being in March -2016, in furtherance to the establishment of the National IPR policy.

One key objective of these developments in the IPR field has been to increase and strengthen the IPR laws, and also to enhance the procedure of Patent registration. However, these changes and amendments have not only given incentives to the inventors to get their works patented, but have also built up their faith in the administrative bodies (Patent office) that are involved in the grant/issuance of Patents.

As is known, the Indian Patent Office is spread over four locations, namely Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai that administer the laws concerning protection of inventions in the country by way of grant of exclusive rights in the form of Patents to the Applicants for a limited period.

Following are the charts of the First Examination Reports (FERs) that have been issued in the year 2015, 2016 and 2017.

graph1

Fig 1: FER issued in 2015 against each category

graph2

Fig 2: FER issued in 2016 against each category

graph3

Fig.3: FER issued in 2017 against each category

graph4

Fig.4: Comparative graph showing FER issued during three years

By perusing the above graphs, it is quite evident that the offices have largely worked at par in the year 2015 and 2016. However, in the year 2017, Patent offices have shown considerable surge in the issuing of examination reports when compared to previous years. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the recent amendments and developments in the Indian Patent laws have brought about a positive change in functioning of the Patent prosecution, thereby building trust and faith of the inventors as well as of Applicants who file their Patent Applications in India, thereby complying with the National IPR policy.

 

NUMBERS OF FERs ISSUED IN EACH PATENT CATEGORY (MONTHLY)

EVALUATION OF THE YEAR – 2015

graph5

Fig. 5 : Number of FERs issued in Electrical/Electronics Domain in 2015

graph6

Fig.6: Number of FERs issued in Biotechnology Domain in 2015

graph7

Fig. 7: Number of FERs issued in Chemistry Domain in 2015

graph8

Fig. 8: Number of FERs issued in Mechanical Domain in 2015

 

EVALUATION OF THE YEAR – 2016

graph9

Fig. 9: Number of FERs issued in Electrical/Electronics Domain in 2016

graph10

Fig. 10: Number of FERs issued in Biotechnology Domain in 2016

graph11

Fig. 11: Number of FERs issued in Chemistry Domain in 2016

graph12

Fig. 12: Number of FERs issued in Mechanical Domain in 2016

 

EVALUATION OF THE YEAR – 2017

graph13

Fig. 13: Number of FERs issued in Electrical/Electronics Domain in 2017

graph14

Fig. 14: Number of FERs issued in Biotechnology Domain in 2017

graph15

Fig. 15: Number of FERs issued in Chemistry Domain in 2017

graph16

Fig. 16: Number of FERs issued in Mechanical Domain in 2017

As would be appreciated from the above charts, the number of FERs issued in 2015 in each category of patents i.e. electronics, Mechanical, Chemistry and Biotechnology as shown in Figs.5-8 is less than 500 Applications in each month, which is very low, considering that there are Four Patent Offices in India taking care of the geographical extent of the country. The graphs in Figs. 9-12 depict FERs issued in 2016, which shows moderate increase in the number of FERs being issued compared to 2015. It is pertinent to note that in the period of January to March 2017, the Offices showed the same performance as that of 2016. There were very few issuances of FERs in the month of April and May 2017 in all the four categories, probably due to implementation of the new Amended Patent Rules. However, the period from June to December 2017 has shown a huge rise in the number of Applications that has been examined by respective Patent Offices. The graphs, as provided in Figs. 13-16 show a considerable growth in the issuance of FERs as compared to the previous years. However, the efficiency of Delhi Patent Office and Chennai Patent Office has not increased significantly and these two offices seem to be largely consistent. The Mumbai Patent Office and the Kolkata Patent Office are positive examples of how the Patent Rule amendments have enhanced the competitiveness with respect to swift issuance of FERs.

 

CONCISE COMPARISON OF ISSUANCE OF FERs in 2015, 2016 AND 2017

 

Group
2015
2016
2017
Electrical
7186
7179
19734
Biotechnology
1498
1512
4179
Chemistry
6563
5116
15088
Mechanical
4338
5406
12888
Total
19,585
19,213
51,889


graph17

In the year 2017, 51,889 Examination Reports have been issued, while in the year 2016 and 2015, 19,213 and 19,585 FERs were issued, respectively. Therefore, the Patent Offices have demonstrated more than 2.5 times improvement in its competitiveness in a single year.

 

GRANTED PATENT

graph19

Fig. 17: number of patents granted in biotechnological domain

graph20

Fig. 18: number of patents granted in Electrical domain

graph21

Fig. 19: number of patents granted in Mechanical domain

graph22

Fig. 20: number of patents granted in Chemistry domain

By looking at fig. 17, it can be observed, with respect to the Biotechnological domain, that in the year 2015, IPO has only granted 174 patent applications, whereas 2016 witnessed a growth of about 50%, which makes it issuance (grant) of 264 patents. But IPO showed tremendous growth in granting patent to 486 applications in the year 2017.

Fig. 18 depicts number of Patents granted in 2015, 2016 and 2017 in respect of Electrical Domain, which shows that Patents granted in the year 2015 and 2016 were at par with a little variance in number of granted Patents, which was 350 and 381, respectively. It is evident from the graph that the number of Patents granted in the year 2017 is twice of what was granted in the previous years, i.e. 652 applications.

Number of Patents granted in 2015, 2016 and 2017 in Mechanical domain has been provided in fig. 19. It is pertinent to note that IPO in the year 2017 has granted 2091 Patents which is 42% and 44% more than Patent granted in the year 2015 and 2016 respectively.

Further, Fig. 20 shows the number of Patent granted in the span of three years in the field of Chemistry, which clearly shows a progressive growth of the work of IPO from the year 2015 to the year 2017. It can be observed that IPO only granted Patents to 1176 applications in 2015, which increased to 1932 applications in the year 2016 and lastly IPO raised its bar to grant Patent to 2643 applications in 2017.

graph23

Fig.17 to 20-show number of Patents granted in 2015 to 2017 in each categories i.e. Biotechnological, Mechanical, Electrical and Chemistry. It can be observed that among all the three years, the number of patents issued was lowest in year 2015 followed by year 2016. Moreover, year 2017 has witnessed highest number of Patents that has been granted. This progressive growth of IPO in granting Patent hints towards a better and successful future in the field of invention and would be a strong incentive for inventors as well as foreign investors to invent and invest in India.

Author: Pratistha Sinha, Trademark Associate at Khurana&Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at pratistha@iiprd.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

four × five =

Archives

  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010