Tag Archives: controller

FDC Saga: Defiant Manufacturers, Sloppy Regulators and Humongous Inaction

Posted on by
Reply

“TO SIN BY SILENCE WHEN THEY SHOULD PROTEST MAKES COWARDS OF MEN”       – Abraham Lincoln

The ghost of untested, irrational and even of bizarre kind of Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs, which continue to be launched, promoted, prescribed and sold freely across the length and breadth of India, has started haunting the Ministry of Health of India, yet again, in 2013. 

Though the issue originated decades ago, in 1988 appropriate ‘Rule’ of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India was amended suitably to have a firm regulatory grip over this situation. Despite this much awaited amendment, the situation almost went astray with incessant market entry of a large number untested FDC medicines of dubious medical rationale.

A free for all situation, as it were, in the FDC arena, continued to be facilitated by blatant laxity on the part of, especially, the state drug regulators by allowing unfettered market entry of such drugs, ignoring the CDSCO directive.

On the other hand, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), despite its statutory powers,  continued to suffer from humongous inaction untill the issue resurfaced again in 2007 and then of course, now in 2013.

The WHO Model:

The 2005 ʹProcedure to update and disseminate the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, Criteria for Selection’ includes the following statement regarding Fixed Dose Combination products (FDCs):

ʺMost essential medicines should be formulated as single compounds. Fixed‐dose combination products are selected only when the combination has a proven advantage over single compounds administered separately in therapeutic effect, safety, and adherence or in delaying the development of drug resistance in malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/ AIDS.ʺ

Thus, FDCs:

  • Need to demonstrate clinical efficacy and safety beyond the individual drugs when given alone.
  • Need to ‘demonstrate bioequivalence of the single combined dose unit with the components administered in the same doses separately but concomitantly’.

‘Adherence’ aspect of WHO Model for FDCs is also important. Problems with ‘adherence’ could lead to inadequate and inconsistent dosing, which in turn could lead to development of drug resistance.

With robust and unquestionable medical rationale, FDCs are expected to provide superior efficacy and improved compliance without causing any untoward risk to patients.

A major disadvantage:

However, one of the major disadvantages with the FDCs is lack of flexibility in adjusting dose of individual ingredients, even if it is required for some patients. Internationally, most popular example is the FDCs of antiretroviral drugs for HIV infected patients like, Combivir, Trzivir, Kaletra etc.

Interestingly, in India there are FDCs for almost all disease areas from allergic disorders to Wolf-Parkinson-White syndrome (exaggerated), as it were.

Market attractiveness for FDCs in India: 

The domestic market for FDCs is very large and growing much faster, in sharp contrast to the western world. The following table will vindicate this point:

% Share

Drug

2008

2009

2010

2011

Plain

55

55

55

54
Combinations

45

45

45

46

Domestic Market: USD 13 Billion; MAT Apr 2013

Source:IMS

Thus, because of growing market demand, pharmaceutical companies in India tend to market FDCs of all different permutations and combination, at times even crossing the line of any ‘sound medical rationale’. For this reason, we find in the website of ‘Central Drugs Standard Control Organization’ (CDSCO), the banned list of so many FDCs.

A messy regulatory situation:

Introduction of new FDCs does not only warrant a ‘sound medical rationale’ but also ‘strict conformance to all prescribed regulatory requirements’ for patients’ interest. 

To check unfettered market introduction of potentially harmful FDCs, the Ministry of Health issued a Notification in September 1988, including FDCs in Rule 122 E of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules (D&CR) 1945.

In effect, it removed the powers of the State FDAs to give manufacturing or marketing approval of FDCs. After the notification was issued, all manufacturers/marketers of all new FDCs are required to apply only to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) under Rule 122E of the D&CR 1945 as a new drug, along with the stipulated fees by way of a Treasury Challan.

Since this entire process entails appropriate regulatory data generation, besides  time and expenses involved, the above ‘Rule’ was continuously and deliberately broken and manufacturing and marketing approvals for various types of FDCs falling under ‘new drug’ category were regularly sought and granted by the State Drug Controllers.

Many believe that the State FDAs were equally responsible for knowingly flouting the Law, as were the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Patients’ safety – the foremost concern:

Despite serious concerns expressed by a Parliamentary Standing Committee, this complicity resulted in the market being flooded with ‘irrational combinations’ which posed a real threat to patients’ interest and safety. The State FDAs were reminded of the notification by the earlier DCGI.

294 FDCs were banned by the DCGI in 2007. Thereafter, the important issue of patients’ interest and safety got converted into a legal quagmire, as many FDC manufacturers chose to go to the court of law to protect their business interest and also managed to obtain a ‘Stay’ order from the Madras High Court. The matter is still subjudice.

Be that as it may, those 294 FDCs banned by the Ministry of Health of India on health and safety grounds continue to be promoted, prescribed and sold to patients across India without any hindrance, whatsoever.  

Untangling the messy knot:

As the issue got entangled into prolonged litigations, the CDSCO took initiative of resolving this contentious issue again in 2009 with the help of an expert committee, involving the manufacturers.

This subcommittee cleared 48 FDCs under ‘similar FDCs already approved’, after discussing the merits and demerits, including pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, side effects, dosage, medical rationale etc. of each ingredient and the combinations. The decision of the Sub Committee was then submitted to the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB).

After formal approval of DTAB, these combinations are construed to be new drugs and any company wishing to market/manufacture the formulation would require submitting its Application in Form 44 to the DCGI to get approval in Form 45.

This decision was expected to send a clear signal to all concerned that resorting to any form of shortcuts to bypass strict adherence to prescribed regulatory requirements, could seriously jeopardize patients’ interest and safety. The same process was subsequently followed for the balance 142 FDCs, as well.

Thereafter, a special committee was again appointed by the CDSCO in 2013 to look into this matter in a holistic way. However, such sporadic knee-jerk reactions have failed to deliver any tangible results in this area – not just yet.

The saga continues:

Even after the above critical decision of the DTAB the saga still continues.

In March 2013, by a written reply, the Minister for Health and Family Welfare reportedly informed the Lok Sabha (the lower House of the Parliament) that in twenty three cases of new FDC, licenses have been granted by the State Licensing Authorities (SLAs) without the mandatory approval of the DCGI and action will be taken in all these cases.

However, no one seems to know, as yet, what action the Government has taken against those errant officials.

Current scenario:

Recently, the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) by a notification to State Drug Controllers has reportedly ordered all manufacturers of new FDC products, licensed locally before October 2012 without CDSCO permission, to submit safety and efficacy data prior to 30 August 2013.

This decision of DGHS has created a furore within the concerned FDC manufacturers, yet again, the possible outcome of which is yet to be ascertained.

The State Drug Controllers had issued manufacturing licenses for these FDCs prior to October 2012. At that time concerned manufacturers were given 18 months time period to prove efficacy and safety of these medicines to the DCGI. Regrettably, as per the above report, the DCGI has confirmed that he has received hardly any response from the FDC manufacturers till date on this regulatory requirement.

CDSCO has also stated that manufacturers, who will fail to submit the required data by the deadline run the risk of having their products banned from the market.

Before this, the State Drug Controllers were informed about this requirement on January 15, 2013.

At this point it is worth mentioning, the DCGI in October 2012 had reportedly also barred the State Drug Controllers from granting manufacturing licenses to pharmaceutical companies under brand names of the drugs, directing them to strictly issue licenses under generic name of the molecule. Additionally, he also asked the state licensing authorities not to grant licenses to combination drugs, which are technically ‘new drugs’ and fall within the domain of DCGI only.

Conclusion:

This logjam with FDCs certainly cannot continue in perpetuity, neither should such regulatory sloppiness be acceptable to any right thinking stakeholder.

All blatant violations of Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India must be stopped forthwith and the violators be brought to justice without delay. Patients’ health interest, as required by the drug regulators, is non-negotiable.

The order of DGHS asking all manufacturers of new FDCs, licensed locally before October 2012 without CDSCO permission, to submit safety and efficacy data prior to 30 August 2013, should not follow recently reported Pioglitazone type of volte face, once again, under similar outside pressure.

It is high time now for the Government to bring the unending saga of  irrational and harmful FDCs, orchestrated by defiant manufacturers, encouraged by sloppy regulators and catalyzed by humongous systemic inaction, to its logical conclusion, for patients’ sake. 

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

 

Grant of Compulsory License for Bayer’s Nexavar in India raises more questions than answers

Posted on by
Reply

On March 12, 2012, the Patent Office of India, in its landmark ruling, granted its first ever Compulsory License (CL) for Bayer’s patented kidney and liver cancer drug Nexavar (Sorafenib), to the generic pharma player Natco, broadly citing the following reasons:

  • Reasonable requirements of public under Section 84 have not been satisfied.
  • The Patented Drug was not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price as per Section 84 (1) (b).
  • Patented invention is not worked in the territory of India as per Section 84 (1) (c)

The 62 page order of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark (CGPDTM) granted the CL to Natco for the rest of patent life of sorafenib in India at the high end of the UNDP 2001 royalty guidelines at 6 percent.

Sorafenib:

Sorafenib was co-developed and co-marketed by Bayer and Onyx Pharmaceuticals  for the treatment of advanced  renal cell and hepatocellular carcinoma. The drug got its first regulatory approval from the US FDA for advanced renal cell carcinoma in 2005.

National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of UK had indicated that the drug extends life of the kidney cancer patients by three months on an average.

As stated earlier, in March 2008, Indian patent for Sorafenib was granted to Bayer by the CGPDTM. Thereafter, in December 2010 Natco had requested for a voluntary license from Bayer, which was rejected by the patentee.

It has been reported that sorafenib was registered as an ‘orphan drug’ in the US. The R&D cost of sorafenib was partly subsidized by the US Orphan Drug tax credit.

Mixed reaction:

Though the research based pharmaceutical industry across the world expressed its disappointment over the judgment, many experts and NGOs from different parts of the globe have opined that CGPDTM has set a right precedence by granting a CL for sorafenib, which will ensure, in the times to come, that patent monopolies are kept limited, especially when the patented products are not “reasonably affordable”.

Many people, therefore, envisage that the grant of the first ever CL by the Indian Patent Office could ultimately open the door for other generics players of India to apply for the same on similar grounds and mainly for ‘non-working of patents’, as many patented medicines are now imported into India by the respective global players.

Granting CL should be the last resort:

While none can deny that all citizens of India should have access to innovative and lifesaving medicines, as will be required for their medical treatment, it appears rather impractical to envisage that routine issue of CL by the Indian Patent Office will be able to resolve this critical issue on a long term basis.  Grant of CL, if any, I reckon, should be taken only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

Working of a patent:

In this particular case, it has been decided by the CGPDTM that working of a patent will require the concerned company to manufacture the drug in India in a reasonable quantity. The argument of the CGPDTM in this respect, many experts believe, is quite a stretch of an interpretation of the statute.

This is mainly because, as one of the signatories of TRIPS, India has a national commitment for adherence to this important international agreement. It is, therefore, widely believed, if importation is not considered as working of patent, the country could expose itself to the risk of  violation of the Article 27.1 of TRIPS, both in letter and spirit.

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS:

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS on ‘local working of patents’ indicates as follows:

“1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. Subject to paragraph 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced.”

Thus as per Article 27.1 of TRIPS, if commercialization of products patented in India, is done locally either through imports or local manufacturing, should be considered as ‘local working of patents’.

Form 27 vindicates the fact:

Form 27 of the Indian Patents Act, which is a statement regarding the working of patented inventions on commercial scale in India, in its point number 3, under ‘if worked’ states as follows:

“If worked: quantum and value (in Rupees) of the patented product:

  1. Manufactured in India
  2. Imported from other countries (give country-wise details)”

Thus, when Form 27 itself accepts importation as ‘local working of patent’, it is indeed intriguing why was the decision to the contrary taken by the CGPDTM?

Moreover, it is worth noting that the term ‘manufacture in India’ was deleted from the earlier Section 90 (a) of the Patents Act.

A statutory requirement:

CGPDTM through a circular dated December 24, 2009, directed all Patentees and Licensees to furnish information in ‘Form No.27’ on ‘Local Working of Patents’ as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act.

It will be interesting to know, whether CGPDTM in response to Form 27 submissions of Bayer had informed them earlier that the Nexavar Patent has not been worked in India. If not, what is then the sanctity of Form 27 filing?

Delhi High Court Judgment:

Further, it has been well reported that in the legal case of ‘Telemecanique & Controls (I) Limited Vs. Schneider Electric Industries SA 94(2001)DLT865’ on working of patents, the Delhi High Court had concluded that importation would amount to working of Patents.

India specific pricing for innovative drugs is not uncommon:

At this stage, it is worth mentioning that India specific pricing for innovative drugs are not uncommon in the country at all. Following are some good examples:

  • GlaxoSmithKline  Pharmaceuticals has already announced its differential pricing system for India and will sell its innovative drugs at prices 25% to 40% less than what those are in the US.
  • MSD  has already introduced its India specific price for patented products. Their patented cervical cancer drug Gardasil is being sold in India at 75% -80% less than the global prices.
  • Moreover, MSD’s patented anti-diabetic drug Januvia (sitagliptin phosphate) is locally sourced and marketed at one-tenth of the global price.
  • In 2008 Novartis  reportedly tied up with the domestic pharma major USV to market its patented anti-diabetic drug Galvus (Vildagliptin) by pricing it lower than Januvia. According to reports, Novartis markets Galvus in the metros, while USV markets the same brand in tier two and three cities of India.
  • Roche  has recently collaborated with the domestic pharma player Emcure Pharmaceuticals to manufacture its two well-known biologics Herceptin and MabThera not only to cater to the domestic needs, but also for export to other developing markets.

Manufacturing of a small quantity locally – an issue:

As quoted in the order of the CGPDTM there are around 8842 eligible patients for sorafenib in India. All these patients put together will require Nexavar ranging from 27000 (Bayer’s figure) to 70000 boxes (NATCO’s figure) per year.  Thus, the moot question remains: even for such small annual requirements, should global companies set up manufacturing facilities in all the countries like, India.

Another question: if other smaller markets of the world also make local manufacturing mandatory for any pharmaceutical products that will be sold in their respective countries, will the Indian players find those markets attractive enough to expand their business? In that case who will be the net losers?… Patients?

Conclusion:

If the issue of whether importation will be considered as ‘local working of patents’ or not is not answered conclusively under higher judicial scrutiny in conformity of Article 27.1 of TRIPS and CL is granted to local manufacturers for commercial benefits under similar situation, availability of life saving innovative products in the Indian market for the patients of India could be in a real jeopardy.

The objective of improving access to innovative medicines is a very desirable one for any country like ours. However, if India routinely starts granting CL for this purpose before exhausting all other avenues to achieve this goal, it would risk sending a very wrong signal to the outside world that the country is shirking its responsibilities to create an appropriate ecosystem to foster and support pharmaceutical innovation to offer better quality of lives to the citizens of the country in particular.

In the absence of both collaboration and foreign direct investments by the global innovators in the field of pharmaceutical research and development, India may feel handicapped, especially when our neighbor China is surging ahead in this field with longer strides.

Thus, routine grant of CL, as is being envisaged by many in India, on a similar situation could, on the contrary, make the issue of access to innovative medicines by the common man even more challenging, in the longer run.

By: Tapan J Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Indian Patent office (IPO) asks for details of ‘working of patents’ in India – does it herald the beginning of a new chapter in the IPR regime of the country or it could trigger another raging debate

Posted on by
Reply
A Public Notice dated 24/12/2009 issued by the Controller General of Patents, Design & Trade Marks, directing all Patentees and Licensees to furnish information in Form No.27 on ‘Working of Patents’ as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act (as amended) read with Rule 131 of the Patents Rule 2003 ( as amended). The notice also draws attention to penalty provisions in the Patent Act, in case of non-submission of the aforesaid information.The Last date for filing the information is March 31, 2010. Only history will tell us about the possible future impact of this notification.Why is this information needed by the IPO?

Indian Patent Law specifies a provision for submission of information in Form 27 regarding the details of ‘working of a patent’ granted in India, which is a statutory requirement.

The information sought by the IPO in Form 27 can be summarized as follows:

A. For not ‘working of patent’: the reasons for not working and steps being taken for ‘working of the invention’ to be provided by the patentee.

B. In case of establishing ‘working of a patent’, the following yearly information needs to be provided:

1. The quantity and value of the invention worked; which includes both local manufacturing and importation.
2. The details to be provided if any licenses and/or sub-licenses have been granted for the products during the year.
3. A statement as to whether the public requirements have been met partly/adequately to the fullest extent at a reasonable price.

NB:

• A fine of up to (USD $25,000 may be levied for not submitting or refusing to submit the required information by the IPO.
• Providing false information is a punishable offence attracting imprisonment of up to 6 months and/or a fine.

What would amount to ‘Local Working of Patent’ in India?

Obviously, the question will arise what then would constitute ‘working of patent’ in the country. It is generally believed that ‘commercial exploitation’ of patented products in India will mean local ‘working of patent’ in the country.

This is still a controversial issue as some experts claim that ‘local working of patent’ can be established only through local manufacturing and thus importation of such products will not be considered as ‘local working of patent’ in India.

However, other groups of experts opine, as a signatory of article 21 (1) of TRIPS, India is under clear obligation to accept importation of a locally patented product as ‘local working of patent’.

How affordable is affordable?

Besides, ‘local working of patent’ issue, section 84.1 of the patent Act 2005 under ‘Compulsory licenses’ says:

“At any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the (grant) of a patent, any person interested may make an application to the controller for grant of compulsory license on patent on any of the following grounds, namely:

a. that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied, or
b. that the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price, or
c. that the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India.”

The question, therefore, will arise, who will determine whether a patented product is available to the public at a reasonably affordable price or not? Moreover, what will be the measure, formula or yard to stick to decide reasonably affordable price? The next question could be – reasonably affordable price for whom … for the rich minority… or for around 300 million middle class population of the country… or for another 713 million lower middle class or poorer section of the society?

How ‘affordable’ then will be considered as ‘affordable’ in such cases?

Conclusion:

Whatever may be the case, it would be interesting to know, how the Indian patent Office (IPO) would deal with these details. In any case, such information will not remain a secret. ‘The Right to Information Act’ will help ferret all these details out in the open.

Thus, when the ‘moment of truth’ comes, one will be quite curious to note how the proponents of ‘compulsory licensing (CL)’ would try to push their envelope hard enough on this score to establish their view points… And on the other hand how would the innovator companies establish that the price is indeed a function of the value that the product would offer… and in that process would gear themselves up with relevant and credible, possibly ‘Health Technology Assessment (HTA)’ details to establish the price premium of patented products in India to meet the ‘unmet needs of the ailing patients.’

Striking a right balance in this matter by the IPO between rewarding fruits of expensive, risky and time consuming innovation, on the one hand, and help improving access to affordable modern medicines to a vast majority of the population of the country, on the other, will indeed be a daunting task.

By Tapan Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Simmering discontentment in the functioning of the Indian Patent Office (IPO) – urgent need to tighten the ‘loose knots’ in the system.

Posted on by
Reply
Indian Patent office (IPO) though is headquartered at Kolkata, because of some unknown reason, the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM)is located in Mumbai with other two offices at New Delhi and Chennai. Moreover, the office of the ‘Patent Information System’ is located at Nagpur. Scattered location of the IPO, many believe, could be an impediment in ensuring uniformity in operations between all its units. Such an opinion is debatable though, I shall not deliberate on this issue in this article.The point that I shall argue upon is the crying need in the IPO to tighten 15 identified ‘loose knots’in its operation, which are causing considerable concern within stakeholders, who are casting serious aspersions in its efficiency.There are some areas where our IPO is doing quite well. I shall also dwell upon those areas before highlighting the areas of improvements.

The new IPR regime came into force from January 1, 2005. Even 4 years down the line, the IPO still remains grossly understaffed. Growing dissatisfaction with the current functioning of the IPO is fast sapping initial enthusiasm of the innovators on the new IPR regime in the country. ‘The glass’ now perpetually looks as ‘half empty’, as it were and will continue to do so, if corrective measures are not taken, forthwith.

The information available from the IPO website indicates that all the four centers put together, there are just 134 Examiners, 31 Assistant Controllers, 4 Deputy Controllers and 1 Joint Controller. Staff attrition rate within the IPOs has been reported to be reasonably high, which incidentally appears to be one of the key issues of their inefficiency. These trained IPO personnel are being poached mainly by the private sector enterprises, offering significantly higher remuneration. At the same time, there appears to be 3 times increase in the number of applications filed in the last five years, complicating the situation further.

The silver lining is, despite all these, the performance of IPO quantitatively speaking, is really not as poor. Around 11,000 patents were granted by the IPOs in 2007-08. This number, when translated into average number of patents granted per day, works out to be 50. This figure, when viewed in terms of number of patents granted against the number of applications made, compares reasonably well with the developed nations of the world like, USA and EU. It is worth noting that in those countries the product patent regime is in place, since long.

Indian Patent Act 2005 is believed to be more stringent than the prevailing Patent Acts in the USA or EU. It is good to note that quoting the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) it has been reported that each Indian Patent Examiner examines about 100 applications per annum against 50 to 80 in the USA and the EU. This is indeed laudable.

Indian Patent Office is currently going through ‘capacity building’ exercises. The efforts being made towards this direction are expected to make the IPOs more efficient, hopefully, in pursuit of excellence.

India has recently been approved as an International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). This, in turn, will significantly increase the workload of the IPO.

When we are mentioning about the PCT, perhaps it will not be out of place to say that some section in India argues in favour of the need to include the International Nonproprietary Names (INN) in the title of pharmaceutical patent applications by the IPO. However, as INNs are not required in the title of patent applications under Article 27(1) of the PCT, such a requirement, in my view, could appear to conflict with the PCT.

Thus, it has now become more essential that the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) tightens the ‘loose knots’ in the IPO system, immediately, to make it efficient and effective.

In this article I shall not go into much debated and discussed, ‘Indian Patent Manual’ issue. I shall only submit the following 15 suggestions towards achieving the above objective:

1. To effectively cope with its growing workload, the Patent office should upgrade its IT facilities and ensure that patent examiners are trained to handle the filing and prosecution of patent applications.

2. Electronic-filing of patent applications has been introduced, but there is no facility of paying the fees online by credit card. This facility should be introduced to make it more convenient for applicants to file patent application online. This will also add speed to the process.

3. Electronic prosecution of patent applications should be introduced to make the patent prosecution paperless and more efficient.

4. To encourage applicants to file applications electronically, incentives such as reduced fees should be offered to applicants who file their applications electronically.

5. The Patent Office has in the past experienced problems in locating and managing physical application files. It is therefore recommended that the Patent Office introduce systems for better management and storage of physical files. Using a system of bar codes on the physical files could be one such system.

6. The Patent Office should digitize all of its physical files so that file histories of each application will be available online.

7. The Indian Patents Database and the Indian Designs Database to be released without further delay.

8. An efficient system to be introduced to ensure timely publication of all patent applications and proceedings that are eligible for publication in the technical journal of the IPO. Currently there is inordinate delay, for example Delhi Patent Office is now publishing applications for 2005

9. Patent applications that are published in the official gazette have minimal information. It is therefore recommended that the official gazette include more details of the applications in order to avoid any frivolous or unnecessary oppositions being filed.

10. The Patent office does not have any centers, which provide assistance to applicants for filing or prosecuting applications. It is therefore recommended that assistance centers should be established to help applicants to file and prosecute applications in India.

11. Clear guidelines to be issued for conducting pre-grant and post grant opposition proceedings. Presently they are being handled in an arbitrary manner

12. In order to avoid any frivolous pre-grant opposition during the prosecution of the application, the Patent Office should introduce a fixed fee that has to be paid to the Patent Office at the time of filing of a pre-grant opposition. This will help to avoid frivolous delays in the grant of the patent.

13. In order to introduce an efficient system of patent prosecution, it is recommended that the Patent Office adjust patent term to compensate patentees for any delay in the grant of the patent that reduces the term of the patent, when such delay is caused solely by the Patent office.

14. Decision making and its communication to all concerned to be made faster at the IPO. A system to be instituted for issuing the operative part of the decision first, followed by details of the decision taken. These should be advertised immediately in the technical journal to close proceedings at the earliest. Delays are leading to extensive delays in the grant of patents even if the proceedings have been concluded (opposition or otherwise) attracting serial and frivolous pre-grant oppositions. Such delays are also preventing the patent applicants to get their grants and are, therefore, unable to initiate infringement proceedings against infringers quickly, defeating the very purpose of the patent and trademark system.

15. The timeline for an application to be taken up for examination to be clearly defined. Currently, there is no time defined for taking up the applications for examination.

It will indeed be great, if the DIPP and the IPO take note of these suggestions and formalize a process within the IPO to address these issues. A growing discontentment in several areas of operation within the IPO is brewing, both in India and abroad. If such discontentment increases further, it may have serious impact on the credibility of the new IPR regime in India.

Will the Government of India want that to happen? I hope not.

By Tapan Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.