SupremeCourt

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Patent prosecution highway: A potential game changer for India

Posted on 7:00 PM by Unknown
    
The patent prosecution highway (PPH) is a kind of bidirectional work sharing agreement between two patent offices which allows examiners of one patent office to reuse search and examination results already conducted by another patent office. This post aims to explore how India might possibly benefit by becoming a part of the patent prosecution highway program. 

The USPTO extended its first patent prosecution highway as a pilot program with Japan in July 2006. Since then the US patent prosecution highway program has expanded to include PPH alliances with 23 major patent offices around the world. The complete list of PPH participating countries can be accessed here. Some of the Asian PPH participants include Japan, China, Korea, and Singapore. 


Fasten your seatbelts?
Image from here

Under the PPH, when at least one claim is deemed to be patentable by office of first filing (patent office receiving the priority patent application), the applicant may request expedited examination of the corresponding patent application claims in the office of second filing. 

A close cousin of PPH program is the PCT-PPH program wherein an applicant receiving a positive written opinion/International Preliminary report on patentability from one of the participating offices acting as International search authority may request for expedited examination of their corresponding national phase entry applications. 

In prosecuting patent applications an important aspect of a patent examiner’s tasks is to search prior art and limit claims that are broad in scope and read on part of prior art. Around the world’s patent offices, this task is essentially similar enough to be shared. Under the PPH program, the office of second filing (OSF) can rely on work products of office of first filing (OFF) thereby reducing redundancy. In a PPH alliance , office of second filing can save resources by using the search results of Office of first filing and the risk of disregarding a foreign language prior art is also substantially reduced. In fact the Indian patent office also currently uses work products of other patent offices as a reference, albeit indirectly through a Section 8 requirement. Section 8 of Indian patent act mandates that, an applicant must update the Indian patent office from time to time with details of search and examination reports of the foreign applications. 

The PPH program also offers several advantages which include accelerated examination (examination is completed within 3 months of PPH request provided the requirements are met), higher allowance rate (more than 90 percent of cases are allowed; only 50% of non-PPH cases are allowed). PPH participation also offers applicants the advantage of decreased prosecution costs owing to the substantial reduction in the number of office actions. 

For an application to be eligible for entry into US through the PPH program, it must meet the following requirements. The US application must claim foreign priority to the corresponding application in the office of first filing under Paris convention route or PCT route. The application must have at least one claim that has been declared allowable by office of first filing. The claims of the U.S. application, as originally filed or as amended, “sufficiently correspond” to one or more of the allowed claims in the office of first filing. Of course the fact that your application has allowable claims does not mean that the corresponding claims will be automatically allowed in the Office of Second filing (OSF). The OSF examiner will examine the application based on patent law in the Office of second filing. A comprehensive list of frequently asked questions can be found here. 

On the flipside, each patent office has certain benefits and shortcomings in terms of the quality and scope of examination and this might reflect in the quality of the issued patent. Furthermore patent applications containing non-patentable subject matter may not enjoy the benefits offered by the PPH framework. Also applicants who would like to delay prosecution for some strategic purposes will not stand to benefit from PPH. The possibility that Indian examiners might emulate American standards of patentability is also another risk associated with the PPH model. This may explain why some of the countries have not seen it fit to participate in the PPH. 

Overall though, PPH offers a lot of benefits to patent applicants and India’s participation in the PPH program might very well incentivize innovation. The President recently lamented that India lags behind in filing patent applications. Hence, I believe that the PPH model which allows applicants to leverage allowance of claims from one office to another might lead to an increase in domestic patent filings. In spite of facing many challenges in translation, countries like Japan, Korea and more recently China are members of PPH program. In light of all this, it is my opinion that India should initiate a trial/pilot PPH program to gauge the effectiveness of the PPH model.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in IP Policy, Madhulika, Patent Prosecution | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • IPAB on Payyannur Ring
    [*S lightly long post] Background: The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“ IPAB ”), in its recent order in SubhashJewellery v. Payyan...
  • Guest Post: Intermediary liability in defamation cases - Parle, Mouthshut & Visakha cases to clarify the law
    Chaitanya Ramachandran, who has blogged for us previously over here and here , has sent us this excellent guest post analyzing the extent of...
  • IP Research Assistant position at IIT, Madras
    Feroz Ali Khader, MHRD IP Chair at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, is looking for research assistants to work on various is...
  • Dorling Kindersley v. Sanguine Technical Publishers
    A recent Delhi High Court order passed on 21 January, 2013  with respect to copyright licensing has come to our notice. An analysis of the j...
  • Call for Papers: IIT Bombay and MHRD jointly announce the 2nd International Conference on Management of Intellectual Property and Strategy
    The readers may be interested to know that the Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management of IIT Bombay is geared up to host, in collaboration w...
  • SpicyIP Tidbit: ALCS August Distribution
    In the UK, the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society is an organization run and owned by writers that collects money due to its mem...
  • Delhi HC rejects the "Hot News" Doctrine: A Summary
    The applicability of the Hot News doctrine was rejected recently in a landmark ruling delivered by Justice Bhat of the Delhi HC. This post i...
  • Satyajit Ray's sketches and copyright controversies
    A copyright row appears to have started between the Satyajit Ray Society and the Delhi Art Gallery, that is organising a countrywide exhibit...
  • Thalappakatti biryani trademark row
    The southern district of Dindigal in Tamil Nadu occupies a special place in the hearts of biryani lovers. In the late 1950s, one Nagasamy N...
  • Karnataka High Court temporarily restrains German company from exploiting trade secrets of Homag India
    Image from here In an interesting judgment dated 10th October, 2012 the Karnataka High Court, sitting at Bangalore, has passed an interim in...

Categories

  • 126 (1)
  • 3(d) (4)
  • 3(f) (1)
  • 3(i) (1)
  • 3(k) (2)
  • Academic Writing (1)
  • access (10)
  • access to food (1)
  • access to health (3)
  • AIA (1)
  • AIDS/HIV (3)
  • Antitrust (2)
  • Bajaj v LML (1)
  • Basmati Row (2)
  • Biological Diversity (5)
  • Biologics (2)
  • biopiracy (4)
  • biotech (7)
  • Bollywood (25)
  • Broadcasters Rights (5)
  • Budget (1)
  • business method patent (2)
  • Call for papers (2)
  • Cipla (2)
  • Comparative Advertising (4)
  • Competition law (8)
  • Compulsory Licensing (27)
  • condonation of delay (1)
  • Conference (4)
  • Constitution (12)
  • Contracts (1)
  • Controller's decisions (8)
  • Copyright (112)
  • Copyright Amendment Bill 2010 (23)
  • copyright board (4)
  • Copyright Exceptions (6)
  • copyright office (1)
  • Copyright Rules (2013) (5)
  • Copyright Societies (9)
  • Counterfeiting (1)
  • creativity (1)
  • Cross Retaliation (1)
  • csir (4)
  • d (1)
  • D.U. Photocopy Case (16)
  • Darjeeling Tea (3)
  • Data Exclusivity (2)
  • Database (1)
  • DCGI (2)
  • decompilation (2)
  • defamation (9)
  • Designs (3)
  • Designs Act (3)
  • Differential Pricing (2)
  • Dilution (1)
  • Disabilities (3)
  • Disability (2)
  • DMCA (2)
  • Doha Declaration (1)
  • Domain Names (2)
  • Draft Policy of the Indian Government (2)
  • DRM (1)
  • Drug Regulation (7)
  • education (12)
  • Enercon (1)
  • Enforcement (1)
  • EU (2)
  • ex parte (2)
  • exhaustion (3)
  • Exhaustion of Rights (2)
  • Fair Dealing (8)
  • Fair Use (11)
  • Federal Circuit (1)
  • Fees (3)
  • FICCI (7)
  • FRAND (2)
  • free trade agreement (3)
  • FTA (3)
  • G.I. Registry (4)
  • gene sequences (3)
  • Generic medicine (4)
  • Geographical Indication (14)
  • Gilead (1)
  • Glenmark (5)
  • Gopika (34)
  • Guest post (11)
  • guidelines (1)
  • GWU-CII (1)
  • Herceptin (1)
  • hot news (3)
  • ICANN (1)
  • incremental innovation (1)
  • independence (1)
  • india (5)
  • Indian Government (1)
  • Indian patent litigation (27)
  • Indian Pharma (35)
  • Injunction (10)
  • Innovation (7)
  • INTA (1)
  • Intermediaries (10)
  • internet (11)
  • Internet Access Providers (IAPs) (5)
  • Internet Censorship (7)
  • IP scholarship (3)
  • IP aware (4)
  • IP Course (3)
  • IP Education (1)
  • IP Policy (11)
  • IP update (4)
  • ip writing competition (1)
  • IPAB (34)
  • ipchair (1)
  • IPO (1)
  • IPRS (5)
  • IT Act (1)
  • Journal (2)
  • judicial independence (3)
  • Jurisdiction (1)
  • Kruttika (4)
  • Legal Education (3)
  • Legal Research Tools (1)
  • Legal Scholarship (2)
  • library (2)
  • Licensing (7)
  • Madhulika (20)
  • mathematical methods (1)
  • Media law (3)
  • medical method (1)
  • Merck (4)
  • mhrd ip chair (1)
  • Microsoft (3)
  • Middle Path (1)
  • Moral Rights (2)
  • Movies (18)
  • musical work (2)
  • nanotechnology (1)
  • Natco (3)
  • natco defamation suit (5)
  • natco vs bayer (4)
  • need for transparency (1)
  • Novartis (8)
  • Novartis patent case in India (11)
  • NPEs (2)
  • nujs (1)
  • NUJS Conference (2)
  • Obituary (1)
  • obviousness (7)
  • Off-Topic (2)
  • online course (4)
  • Open Access (6)
  • Open Source (2)
  • Opposition (3)
  • Parallel Imports (4)
  • Parliament (1)
  • passing off (5)
  • Patent (52)
  • Patent act (10)
  • patent agent (5)
  • patent agent exam (9)
  • patent agent exam qualifications (3)
  • patent infringement (5)
  • Patent Licensing (2)
  • Patent litigation (2)
  • Patent Office (19)
  • patent pool (3)
  • Patent Prosecution (7)
  • Patent rules (2)
  • Patent Strategies (8)
  • Patents (9)
  • pegasus (1)
  • Personality Rights (1)
  • Pfizer (1)
  • Pharma (18)
  • Piracy (5)
  • plagiarism (3)
  • Plant Variety Protection (2)
  • post grant (1)
  • Prashant (2)
  • Preventive Detention (1)
  • Price Control (6)
  • prior publication (1)
  • Privacy (3)
  • Prizes (1)
  • public health (3)
  • Public Interest (4)
  • Publicity Rights (4)
  • Publishing (3)
  • radio (2)
  • Rajiv (18)
  • Rectification Petition (2)
  • Rejection (1)
  • research (3)
  • reverse engineering (2)
  • revocation (4)
  • rip (1)
  • Roche (2)
  • Roche vs Cipla (1)
  • Royalty (2)
  • RTI (2)
  • Scholarship (4)
  • section 16 (1)
  • Section 3(d) (7)
  • section 8 (6)
  • shamnad (11)
  • Shan Kohli (4)
  • Shouvik Kumar Guha (30)
  • Smartphones/Tablets (2)
  • Social Innovation (1)
  • Software (10)
  • software enforcement (3)
  • software patent (3)
  • Special 301 Report (1)
  • Spicy Tidbits (6)
  • spicyip (1)
  • SpicyIP Accolades (1)
  • SpicyIP Announcements (9)
  • SpicyIP Case (1)
  • SpicyIP Cases (3)
  • spicyip commiseration (1)
  • SpicyIP Events (11)
  • SpicyIP Fellowship (5)
  • SpicyIP Guest Series (22)
  • SpicyIP Interview (2)
  • SpicyIP Jobs (4)
  • SpicyIP Jobs/General (2)
  • SpicyIP Review (1)
  • SpicyIP Tidbits (11)
  • SpicyIP Weekly Review (27)
  • Statutory Licensing (1)
  • STI Policy 2013 (4)
  • Sugen (3)
  • Supreme Court of India (5)
  • Swaraj (19)
  • Tarnishment (1)
  • Technology (6)
  • Technology Transfer (5)
  • TKDL (5)
  • TPP (1)
  • trade (4)
  • Trade Secret Protection (1)
  • Trademark (59)
  • Trademark dilution (1)
  • Trademark Registry (9)
  • Traditional Knowledge (7)
  • Transparency (5)
  • treaty (1)
  • trial (1)
  • tribunals (2)
  • TRIPS (11)
  • UK (3)
  • unfair competition (5)
  • UNFCCC (1)
  • Universities Research and Innovation Bill (2)
  • US (1)
  • US Patent Reform (1)
  • US Supreme Court (3)
  • viva (3)
  • WIPO (5)
  • Working a Patent (2)
  • Workshop (4)
  • writ (1)
  • WTO (1)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (364)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ►  August (41)
    • ►  July (36)
    • ►  June (36)
    • ►  May (32)
    • ►  April (51)
    • ►  March (66)
    • ▼  February (40)
      • Off-Topic: Call for Papers from the Journal of Tel...
      • Budget 2013-14: What’s in stock for IP and innovat...
      • LDCs seek indefinite extension of transition perio...
      • Madras High Court judgment gives a boost to unauth...
      • SpicyIP Event: MIP India IP and Innovation Forum
      • National Innovation Foundation: Boosting Frugal Te...
      • SpicyIP Weekly Review (February Week 4)
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Retraction Watch posts restored
      • Revisiting the Trans Pacific partnership agreement
      • The Sugen v. Cipla post-grant opposition: The lost...
      • Legality of trademark protection for deities in th...
      • Guest Post: The complex problem of developing mode...
      • SpicyIP Weekly Review- ( February Week 3)
      • Blocking (Counting) your Chickens before they hatc...
      • Accessibility of public libraries to persons with ...
      • The ‘Global’ Fund being criticized
      • Spicy IP Tidbit: Indian patent office puts an end ...
      • The G.I. Registry digitizes all G.I. records: Tran...
      • Dorling Kindersley v. Sanguine Technical Publishers
      • BMS Hepatitis Patent Invalidated: A Viral Effect f...
      • Patent prosecution highway: A potential game chang...
      • SpicyIP Event: Pharma IPR 2013
      • Patent Office finally takes Form 27s seriously
      • SpicyIP Weekly Review- (February Week 2)
      • Why aren’t there any takers for compulsory licenses?
      • The 19 year war- Financial Times Ltd. v Times Publ...
      • RetractionWatch fiasco: Manipulation of DMCA notic...
      • IPAB directs IPO to accept national phase patent a...
      • SpicyIP Events: MIP's 2nd Annual India IP and Inno...
      • New Unitary Patent System For Europe
      • Is there a need to break up the cartels in the rad...
      • Jailbreaking Sony Playstations To Be Illegal in In...
      • Is the suit again the Registrar of Copyright maint...
      • Déjà vu for Akhtar – nightmare before Barasat Cour...
      • Faking it! Indian Companies using IKEA’s trademarks
      • Latest In: Delhi HC bars Bisleri from using brand ...
      • Part II: Digitization- Growth trends of the Film a...
      • Part I: Digitization of content: a comparative ana...
      • Patent office notifies the next patent agent exami...
      • IPAB revokes several claims of yet another patent ...
    • ►  January (49)
  • ►  2012 (131)
    • ►  December (29)
    • ►  November (42)
    • ►  October (50)
    • ►  September (10)
Powered by Blogger.