As highlighted earlier, yesterday was the last day to share comments/ recommendations with the Ministry of Commerce on the draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2023. While on the blog, we have had posts by Md. Sabeeh Ahmad titled “The Times They Are a-Changin’? A Look at the Revised Patent Prosecution Timelines in the Draft Patent Amendment Rules” and by Swaraj and I titled “Draft Patent Amendment Rules – Increasing Efficiency of Granting Patent Monopolies While Forgetting the Reason for Allowing Them in the First Place” discussing different aspects of the proposed Rules, we also shared a set of detailed comments with the Ministry.
The comments were authored by Swaraj, Tejaswini Kaushal and me along with research assistance from Tanya Verma. The authors would also like to acknowledge the resources and inputs provided by Amit Tailor, Sandeep Rathod, Roshan John and Varsha Jhavar. Views expressed in the comments represent those of the authors’ alone.
Our comments are divided into two parts. Part 1 contains general comments on the lack of transparency behind the process adopted to formulate and draft these proposed amendments and the insufficiency of time to comment on them. Part 2 contains our specific comments and suggestions on the proposed rules, raising concerns about the changes to the pre-grant opposition mechanism, dilution of the working requirement, filing of particulars about foreign applications, the omnibus extension clause, fees to file the proposed Form 31 for Grace Period u/s 31 and the discretionary power to impose compensatory costs under Rule 136 (2). [Note: In the submission, the relevant heading mistakenly states “Section 136(2)” instead of “Rule 136 (2)”. But the contents and the recommendation correctly state it as “Rule 136(2)”.]
Those who are interested in reading the comments can find them here. Also, we’d be happy to link to/share any other submitted submissions to the Ministry if anyone would like to share their comments with us.
