Support for Patent Agent Examination, 2016

Babaria IP & Co., is very glad to provide guidance/assistance for preparation of exam free of cost to help the participants in excelling.

As participants should be well versed with the Indian Patent Act and Rules to qualify, considering the subject matter, we have compiled tentative correlation of Sections and Rules of The Indian Patent Act and relevant forms in a simplest manner.

PATENT ACT/RULES OVERALL

Sr. No Subject

 

Act Rules
1. Application of the patent 6,7,9,10, 10-16
2. Priority 11 21
3. Publication and Examination 11-A,11-B,12-14 24-38
4. Acceptance 21-24  
5. Opposition proceeding to grant of patent 25-28 55-70
6. Anticipation 29-34  
7. Grant and sealing 43,44,47,52,53 73-80
8. Rights of Patentee

–          Co-owner

48,50  
9. Patent of addition 54-56  
10. Amendments 44,57-59 14,75,81-83
11. Infringement 24-E,104-115  
12. Scientific adviser 115 103-107
13. Anticipation 29-34  
14. Provision for secrecy of certain invention 35-42 71-72
15. Restoration 60-62 84-86
16. Surrender /Revocation 63, 64-66,85 87
17. Register of patent 67-72 88-95
18. Patent office and its establishment 73-76  
19. Assignment 68-69  
20. Power of controller 15-20 ,51, 77-81,86,88,131,146 137
21. Exclusive Marketing Rights(EMR) 24-A 39-52
22. Working of patents, Compulsory License 24-C,82-94 96-102
23. Patent Agent 125-132 108-120
24. International Arrangements 133-139 20
25. Use of invention for the purpose of government 99-103  
26. Appeal to the appellate board 116-117  
27. Penalties 118-124  
28. Miscellaneous 140-162 121-139

 

LIST OF FORMS

Form Subject

 

Act Rules
1. Application for the grant of patent

 

Section 7,54 and 135 Rule 20(1)
2. Provisional and complete specification Section 10 Rule 13
3. Statement and undertaking Section 8

 

Rule 12
4. Request for extension of time Section 53(2) and 142(4) Rules 13(6),24-B(4)(ii), 80(1-A) and 130
5. Declaration as to inventor ship Section 10(6) Rule 13(6)

 

6. Claim or request regarding any change in applicant for patent

 

Section 20(1),20(4),20(5) Rules 34(1),35(1), or 36(1)
7. Notice of opposition on grant of a patent Section 25(3) Rule 55-A
7-A For filing a representation opposing grant of a patent under sub-section (1) of section 25 Section 25(1) Rule 55(1)
8. Request or claim regarding mention of inventor as such in patent Section 28(2),28(3), or 28(7) Rules 66,67,68
9. Request for Publication Section 11-A(2) Rule 24-A
10. Application for the amendment of patent Section 44 Rule 75
11. Application for the direction of the controller Section 51(1),51(2) Rule 76,77
12. Request for grant of patent Section 26(1),52(2) Rules 63-A,79
13. Application for amendment of the application for patent/complete specification Section 57 Rule 81(1)

 

14. Notice of opposition to amendment/restoration surrender of patent/ grant of compulsory licensor revision of terms thereof or to a correction of clerical errors Section57(4),61(1),63(3),78(5) and 87(2) Rule 81(3)(b),85(1),87(2),98(1),101(3) or 124
15. Application for the restoration of the patent Section 60 Rule 84
16. Application for the registration of title/interest in a patent or share in it or registration of any document purporting to affect proprietorship of the patent Section 69(1) or 69(2) Rules 90(1) and 90(2)
17. Application for compulsory license Section 84(1),91,92 or 92-A Rule 96
18. Request for examination of application for patent Section 11-B Rule 20(4)(ii) and 24-B(1)(i)
19. Application for revocation of a patent for non working Section 85(1) Rule 96
20. Application for revision of terms and conditions of license Section 88(4) Rule 100
21. Request for termination of compulsory license Section 94 Rule 102(1)
22. Application for registration of patent agents Section 109(1) Rule 112
23. Application for the restoration of the name in the register of patent agents Section 130(2) Rule 117(1)
24. Application for review / setting a side controller’s decision/order Section 77(1)(f),77(1)(g) Rule 130(1) and 130(2)
25. Request for permission for making patent application outside India Section 39 Rule 71(1)
26. Form of authorization of a patent agent/or any person in a matter or proceeding under the act Section 127,132 Rule 135
27. Statement regarding the working of the patented invention on commercial scale in India Section 146(2) Rule 131(1)
28 To be submitted by a small entity with every document for which a fee has been specified   Rule 2(fa) and 7

RINGING BELL’S FREEDOM 251- MAJOR IP CONTROVERSIES

The launch of the Rs 251 smart phone by Ringing Bells Pvt. Ltd. has raised a lot of questions regarding the product, pricing intellectual property concern. The company incorporated in September, 2015 by Amity University graduate Mohit Kumar Goel, has certainly made waves in the Smartphone market. The questions however that needs to be answered primarily is – how is the company able to price the phones at this rate given that a medium pizza costs more than the said phone.

FREEDOM 251-according to a report, is found to be violating Apple’s Copyright all the icons of the built-in app seem to be complete rip-offs of Apple’s Copyright protected IOS icons. Freedom 251’s design is unoriginal and that the company has not taken appropriate licenses other companies unless there is a court order prohibiting a company from making a product that infringes IP of third parties, nothing stops a company from launching an infringing product.

For more info click the below link>>>

http://www.sinapseblog.com/ringing-bells-and-freedom-251-free-from-all-ip-concerns-part-i/

“Prior User” dispute between Neon Laboratories v. Medical Technologies

The Supreme Court of India , giving credence to the ‘first in the market’ test, has passed a significant decision in the case of Neon Laboratories Ltd v Medical Technologies Ltd & Ors (Civil Appeal No 1018 of 2006) affirming the City Civil Court’s and Gujarat High Court’s interim order restraining Neon Laboratories Ltd (Neon) from using the mark ROFOL (which was applied prior to the use of Medical Technologies Ltd’s mark PROFOL) on the basis of its similarity to Medical Technologies Ltd’s (Medical Technologies) mark PROFOL. In effect, the Supreme Court held that a prior application for registration of a mark is of no assistance if the use of the said mark is commenced after twelve years that too after the rival’s use of their mark.

read more>>http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120264982/

Germany’s Boehringer patent on HIV drug denied by Indian Patent Office

Germany’s Boehringer Ingelheim a patent on HIV drug, Nevirapine, for a version sold as Viramune XR (extended release), has denied by the Indian Patent Office

The application on the Nevirapine extended release formulation was refused on the grounds that it was found to be “obvious” and lacking inventive step, violating Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patent Act. Moreover it was found that Viramune XR was merely a new form of something already known.

>>>read more http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Germanys-Boehringer-denied-patent-on-HIV-drug/articleshow/49475528.cms

Battle Between Oyo Rooms and Zo Rooms

oyo-rooms1    vs      zo 1

Delhi HC has issued a stay order against backpacker hostel startup Zostel on a complaint from the hotel rooms aggregator Oyo Rooms on allegations of theft of its copyright material.

The HC in its stay order banned Zostel from continuing with its budget hotel aggregation segment ‘Zo Rooms’ from using ‘confidential information and software’ of Oyo Rooms. >>>Read More

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-04-27/news/61578208_1_oyo-rooms-delhi-high-court-aggregation

Delhi High Court restrains sale of anti-diabetes drugs by Glenmark

 v        GLEN.jpg1                800px-Merck_Logo.svg

Indian pharma giant Glenmark pharamceuticals restrained by the Delhi High Court from making, marketing or selling its anti-diabetes medicines Zeta and Zeta on the ground that it had “prima facie” infringed the patent of US drug major Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD).

A bench of justices S Ravindra Bhat and Najmi Waziri, while granting an interim injunction in favour of MSD, also said the price difference between the drugs of the two companies “is not so startling as to compel the court to infer that allowing Glenmark to sell the drug at depressed prices would result in increased access.”

>>Read more http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31805&articlexml=PATENT-VIOLATION-HC-restrains-Glenmark-from-making-selling-08102015013037

Microsoft, Google make peace, settle all patent disputes

A Microsoft logo is seen on an office building in New York

After five years of patent wars in the U.S. and Germany, Google and Microsoft announced they were settling 18 cases.

The various issues were also settled related to a variety of technologies such as mobile phones, Wi-Fi, and patents used in Microsoft’s Xbox game consoles and other Windows products.

Google and Microsoft have agreed to collaborate on certain patent matters and anticipate working together in other areas in the future to benefit our customers.”

<<< Read more at

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Microsoft-Google-make-peace-settle-all-patent-disputes/articleshow/49179456.cms

 

NNPC drags CAC, others to court over trademark infringement

ABUJA – The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Retail Limited, has dragged the Corporate Affairs Commission, CAC, and Natural Network Petroleum and Gas Company Limited, NNPG, to court, alleging an infringement on its trademark.

The managing Director of NNPC Retail Limited maintained that the suit was a consequence of the anti-corruption campaign of President Muhammadu Buhari.

He said that the firm had  commenced similar legal action against an indigenous firm, Mummy Nigeria Limited,over the same subject matter.He alleged that 1st defendant was imitating NNPC “by using its colour combination of red, yellow, green, uniform, emblem and the acronym NNPG to deceive the public.”

<<<Read more at

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/10/nnpc-drags-cac-others-to-court-over-trademark-infringement/