“A brand is the set of expectations, memories, stories and relationships that, taken together, account for a consumer’s decision to choose one product or service over another.” – Seth Godin

Information Bank

Patents

Patent Opposition

The Patent Act establishes a privilege known as “patent opposition” that allows any third party to contest the validity as well as the patentability requirements of both a pending patent application and a granted patent. Cases related to opposition are dealt by the Indian Patent Office, with the Controller General of Patents as the party in charge of the proceedings. Opposition proceedings with the Indian Patent Office are more favourable than litigation proceedings since they are more affordable, time-bound, and expeditious. If utilised properly, these proceedings can prove to be crucial, since they are designed to prevent the improper procuring of patents and claiming of frivolous or trivial innovations. Although Revocation of Patent and other litigation methods can be used to achieve this, Opposition of Patents is the most economical.

According to the stage of the patent, there are two procedures under the Indian Patent Act that allow opposition to be filed: pre-grant opposition and post-grant opposition. Due to the two different types of methods for Patent Opposition at two separate phases of Patent prosecution, a Patent gains a substantially higher value if it survives the test of opposition.

Grounds for Opposition:

There are substantial differences between the procedures for pre-grant and post-grant oppositions; nonetheless, in accordance with Section 25, sub-sections (1) and (2), the grounds for both are quite the same.

  1. Wrongful obtainment: The Applicant or the Patentee has acquired the invention or any part thereof, from the opponent or a party from whom the opponent derives the title, through wrongful means.
  2. Prior publication: In case the publication of an invention was before the date of priority of the applicant’s/ patentee’s invention, opposition is likely. This is however, restricted by the limitations on anticipation set forth in section 29 of the Patent Act; where the publication does not constitute an anticipation of the product/ procedure.
  3. Prior claim: Prior to the applicant’s claim, the invention was previously asserted in another Indian application which was published on or after the priority date of the applicant’s invention; however, the priority date of which, precedes that of the applicant’s invention.
  4. Prior knowledge or use: An invention or process might face opposition if it is proven to have been in the public domain or used by the general populace in the Indian territory or elsewhere prior to the first date of filing for the application.
  5. Obviousness: An invention can be opposed on the ground that it is obvious and lacks inventiveness. This suggests that the invention is not an enhancement over any prior publication or application in the Indian subcontinent in the terms of usage or knowledge.
  6. Non-patentable subject matter: This implies that the content of the application does not qualify as an invention under the Patents Act or corresponds to the class of “non-patentable inventions.”
  7. Insufficient Description: The disclosure of the invention and its execution technique are ambiguous or not sufficiently described in the patent specification.
  8. False disclosure: The applicant/ patentee has provided information that was substantially false or has omitted to disclose the information concerning international applications as required by section 8 of the Patents Act.
  9. Time limit: The conventional application was not submitted within the requisite 12-month timeframe from the first date of patent application in a conventional nation.
  10. Biological material: The geographical origin or source of the biological material, if any, employed in the development of the invention has been inaccurately described or not been disclosed in the Specification of the invention.
  11. Traditional knowledge: The traditional knowledge that indigenous tribes around the world possess, whether in India or elsewhere, has been utilized as a source for the creation of the invention.

Patent opposition is crucial in preventing the issuance of monopoly rights to frivolous, misleading, fabricated, or trivial claims. The two-tier systems serve as an additional filter to provide the inventor with the maximum level of security. Additionally, it goes a great way toward defending the invention’s legitimate owner by restricting others from reaping the rewards of their labour.