In yet another upgrade, the Indian Patent office has made available few more facilities through its e-filing system (“system”). In general these changes pertain to requests which do not have a prescribed form in the Patent Rules. Since the increase in official fee for paper filing, it is only logical that the system be more comprehensive.
The following have been made available since March 07, 2014:
- Form 16 (Entry no. 25 of Fee Schedule)
- Request for Certified Copies (Entry no. 41 of Fee Schedule)
- Certifying office copies, printed each (Entry no. 42 of Fee Schedule)
- Request for Information u/s 153 (Entry no. 44 of Fee Schedule)
- Preparation of certified copy of priority document and for transmission of the same to IB of WIPO (Entry no. 49 of Fee Schedule
The first facility has, I believe, been incorrectly announced. Under the Patent Rules (amended or otherwise), Form 16 pertains to any assignment, transmission, mortgage or licensing of a patent which allows a person any claim in the patent. I noticed from the system that the Patent Office has replaced Form 16 with the requirement under Entry 25 of the Fee Schedule (“Entry 25”).
Entry 25 deals with the fee for requesting a simple change in the name, address, nationality or address for service for a patent which in no way affects the proprietorship of the patent in any manner. For now it looks like any Form 16 changes which affect any claim to a patent would have to be filed through paper filing which then means an additional fee (10% of the official fee, see here for more details). I am hoping this error would be rectified soon.
With respect to the fourth facility, information that may be obtained under section 153 of the Patents Act (and Rule 134 of the Patents Rules) pertains to procedural compliance related information as regards any patent or patent application. This information could be useful in oppositions and litigation in general. All the other requests are straightforward and deal with obtaining certified copies of various documents for purposes which (yet again) include litigation or other administrative requirements.
Since I have not had an opportunity to use these facilities yet, as always, I ask our readers to let us have their thoughts and feedback.
Related Posts:
Raja Selvam
Founder & Managing Attorney, Selvam & Selvam | Practice areas include Trademarks, Patents, Domain names & Business law. Visiting faculty, Department of Journalism, Madras University where I teach copyrights & trademarks law. Passionate about entrepreneurship, start-ups, stocks, farming, technology and law.
Calcutta High Court reaffirms well-established principles of Trademark law
They should not be placed side by side to find out if there are differences; rather the mark should be taken as a whole.
Trademark Injunctions and Damages in India – Part Three
In my earlier posts (here and here), I discussed the position of law on injunctions, the requirements for grant of temporary injunction and relevant…
Cybersquatting and Fraud – Delhi HC Grants Injunctive Relief to Colgate Palmolive
In a case of fraud, the High Court of Delhi has recently cracked down on unidentified persons who solicited money deposits in the garb of job…