Anticipation: Take this Quiz (Patent Agent Exam)

SUBSCRIBE & SHARE!!
Register here for Live classes: www.iiipf.com
Live Classes FAQs: • FAQs on Live classes: ...
Buy book here:
1. www.whitesmann... (Publisher’s direct Page) or
2. www.amazon.in/...
What is in the Book?
• A Book on Master Guide...
WhatsApp here for any query: 9599305292
Register at www.iiipf.com

[@biswadeepdas2495]

Q7: Form 31 was introduced by IPO for allowing patent applicants to have some grace period for early disclosure od their invention in exhibitions, conferences or learned society. It was incorporated in 2024.

[@biswadeepdas2495]

Case law on section 31(d) relating "Learned society" and "Transactions of the Society" Ethyl Corporation’s Patent (1963 RPC155) and Ralph M. Parsons Application (1978 FSR 226)

[@hashimmohammeds7748]

Q1. there are two possiblities. as per question they have mentioned only exhibition abroad. if the that exhibition is central govenment approved then Chamanlal application cant be refused. relevent section is 31(a) rule 29 A Form 31. if the exhibition is not govt approved then patent office can refuse. Q2. No. it cannot be novelty destroying as per section 31(d) and 29 (2). Q3. A "learned society" is a formal group that promotes the study of specific subjects, often publishing their discussions or findings as "transactions." However, there’s no strict legal definition of "learned society" or "transactions." In Ralph’s Application [1978] FSR 226, the UK Patent Office described a learned society as a group formed to promote learning, though the scope of "learning" remains undefined. The term "transactions" was clarified in Ethyl Corporation's Patent [1963] as the published record of a society’s proceedings. In India, patent officials often refer to UK precedents, accepting certain scientific journals as learned society publications. However, the interpretation of what qualifies as a "transaction" varies, with no consistent standard under Indian law. Q4. the events wont hamper Mr Dutta from patenting his inventions. relevant section Event 1 sec 30, event 2 sec 31 (a), event 3 section 29(2)/ 31 (c). Q5. he application cannot be rejected as it was filed within 12 months of being displayed at the industrial fair, which is covered under Section 31(a) of the Act. Q6. This is a case under sec 32 public use of invention for reasonable trail. but unfortunately Mr Pikku failed to file the application within 12 months from the date of public use. Hence his application cannont be procecuted.

[@biswadeepdas2495]

Yes, Chaman Lal's patent application will be refused under section 31(a) which underlines that public display of the patent should be done under Central Government's notification. In this case, Oxford University has hoisted the exhibition, which is a foreign entity and so, the patent application is liable to be refused.

[@makrandchauhan6233]

Good Morning Ma’am, Makrand Chauhan from 5th IIIPF batch. Ans.1) If we can assum that the invitation to the exhibition at Oxford was extended to Mr. Chamanlal with the consent of the Central Government, where he presented his work, then Section 31(a) is applicable. Additionally, in accordance with Section 31, he filed for patent protection within 12 months of the exhibition display. Therefore, his application cannot be considered as having been anticipated by the prior display and should not be rejected. Ans.2) Circulation by Kishorilal cannot be regarded as novelty-destroying under Section 29(2)(a) and Section 31(d) of the Patent Act. Kishorilal obtained the information from a closed society group and shared it without the consent of the inventor, Krishna Bhai. According to Section 29(2)(a), publishing an invention without the inventor's consent does not destroy its novelty. Furthermore, Krishna Bhai presented the paper before the closed society, so it is not considered anticipated under Section 31(d). Additionally, Krishna Bhai applied for protection within 12 months of the paper's presentation. Therefore, Krishna Bhai's application is not considered anticipated by the aforementioned events. Ans.3) We can cite Ralph Patent Application in UK and the precedent of Ethyl Corporation case In application No. 692/KOL/2008, IPO clarified that the publication maintained by Society was to be considered a learned society and its transactions under Section 31 (d) of the Patents Act; The same stance was taken in Application 1894/Mum/2006 wherein the Controller allowed the Application wherein the Applicant produced an affidavit from the editor of the Scientific journal that journal in which the inventor had published the paper was learned society.

[@gittanjalishinde1125]

Hello ma’am, I am Gitanjali Shinde from 5th IIIPF batch. Quiz 1: Assuming that the invitation for exhibition held at Oxford was tendered to Mr. Chamanlal with the consent of Central Government, wherein he displayed his exhibition, the Section 31(a) comes into picture. Furthermore as per the Section 31, he has applied for patent protection within 12 months from display in the exhibition. Hence his application cannot be deemed to be anticipated by prior display and is not ought to be rejected. Quiz 2: The circulation by Kishorilal cannot be considered to be novelty destroying under Section 29(2)(a) and section 31(d) of the Patent Act. Kishorilal obtained the information from the closed society group and circulated it without the consent of the inventor Krishna bhai and hence as per section 29(2)(a), publishing the invention without the consent of the inventor is not novelty destroying. Krishna bhai had read the paper before the closed society and hence the same is not considered to be anticipated under section 31(d). Krishna bhai also applied for protection within 12 months from the said paper presentation. Hence the application of Krishna Bhai is not deemed to be anticipated by the events mentioned aforesaid. Quiz 3: There is no definition of learned society or transactions of learned society in the Patent Act. On the basis of the Ralph Patent Application in UK and the precedent of Ethyl Corporation case, following is the view taken by IPO: In application No. 692/KOL/2008, IPO clarified that the Indian Pharmacological Society and the Indian Journal of Pharmacology which is a publication maintained by Society was to be considered a learned society and its transactions under Section 31 (d) of the Patents Act; The same stance was taken in Application 1894/Mum/2006 wherein the Controller allowed the Application wherein the Applicant produced an affidavit from the editor of the Scientific journal that journal in which the inventor had published the paper was learned society. The view was dissented by the controller in 2446/Del/2006, wherein the Controller held that Journal of a learned society cannot be considered to be transaction of the learned society because such publications would be available to public either free or after paying a certain fee or subscription. Quiz 4: Response is as under: Dear Mr. Dutta, The events mentioned by your kind self do not affect the Patent protection claimed by you as the same are protected under Section 30 and section 31 of the Act. This can be explained as follows: You communicated with the central government official to investigate the merits of your invention and thereby requesting them to provide you financial help. This is protected under the Section 30 of the Act and such communication with the Central Government cannot be deemed to be novelty destroying. Thereafter you presented and displayed your exhibition in the industrial exhibition held by Government and you filed your application within 12 months from display in exhibition which is protected under the section 31(a) Furthermore your colleague published your invention without your consent and such publication without consent of the inventor is considered to be not novelty destroying under section 31(c). Hence your application will not be refused due to occurrence of aforementioned events. Quiz 5: The application cannot be rejected as the same was filed within 12 months from the display in Industrial fair and the same is covered under section 31(a) of the Act. There is this case of Grasim Industries Vs. Lenzing wherein it was held that to anticipate a patent a prior publication or activities must contain the whole of the invention i.e. all the features by which the particular claim is allowed. Quiz 6: Pikku had taken reasonable trial of the invention. And when such reasonable trial is taken by inventor, as per section 32 the inventor needs to file Application within 12 months i.e. in this case on or before 1st January 2023. Here the Form 31 along with application and reasons and affidavit needs to be filed along with application under rule 29a to claim grace period. The application was filed way beyond this permissible 12 months with 10 months delay on 1st October 2023, which will cause the application to be considered abandoned. Quiz 7: Earlier the Grace Period covered under section 31 was covered only in the act and there was no mention of the same in the Rules. With the latest amendment, rule 29(a) was introduced along with Form 31 to safeguard the right of applicants by providing flexibility and allowing the showcase of invention without immediately forfeiting the patent rights immediately.

[@roshanelizabethdaniel8097]

Student 5th Batch 1. No 2. No 4. Section 30 and 31 5. Section 31

[@satishkanhed8419]

In case of Mr Datta, His patent can be processed successfully. As Sec 29, 30, and 31 supports his case

[@shifalysharma]

Q1 section 31 is applicable. Anticipation by public display. Q2 section 31 Q3 no idea Q4 section 31 and section 30 Q5 section 31 ( notification of fair should be in official gazette) Q6 form 31 is for using grace period. Will have to check how this error can be resolved Q7 form 31 is for using grace period of 12 months. No idea about case laws

[@biswadeepdas2495]

Q5. In accordance with section 31 a and also section 33, The said application for patent will not rebutted because Ghanshyam has filed the invention within one year of displaying at an exhibition in India. Hence his invention is not deemed to be anticipated.

[@kamyagiri]

The above mentioned scenarios may exempt prior publication and display from acting as novelty destroyers: 1. _Grace period_: If the patent application is filed within the grace period (usually 6-12 months) after publication or display. 2. _Experimental use exception_: If the display or publication is for experimental or research purposes, without commercialization. 3. _Non-prejudicial disclosures_: Disclosures made to a limited audience or for a specific purpose (e.g., seeking funding) may not anticipate. In these scenarios, the prior publication or display may not be considered prior art, and therefore may not destroy the novelty of the invention.

[@satishkanhed8419]

S 29 Supports Ghanshyam's Case

[@satishkanhed2946]

Mr. Chamanlal's patent can be accepted by the patent office because, in anticipation suits, he has proof that he made it public first and filed a patent within one year of that.

[@satishkanhed8419]

Krishna Bhai can get a patent Sec 31 allows him to do so if he has filed the patent within one year of the reading that paper

[@vaishallideshpannde7742]

Quiz 1. As per the query : --- Chamanlal displayed his invention In USA on 1st January 2022 in an exhibition organized by Oxford University : --- He filed patent application in India on 1st December 2022; The issue to be addressed is whether his patent application will be refused. It is provided under Section 31(a) of Patent Act 1970 that - display of invention by true and first inventor or any person deriving title from him in an exhibition notified by Govt in official gazette will not be novelty destroying; -patent application has to be made within 12 months from date of display. Chamanlal’s displayed his invention on 1st January 2022 Chamanlal filed application for patent on 1st December 2022(i.e within 12 months period) If it is assumed that invention displayed in USA in Oxford University, was as per Govt notification the display will not novelty destroying as it has been filed within period of 12 months. However,if the notification of Indian Govt does not extend to exhibition organized by Oxford university,the display of exhibition on 1st January 2022 will be novelty destroying even if it is filed within 12 months of display. Vaishali Deshpande, IIIPF 5TH Batch

[@biswadeepdas2495]

Q4. Event 1. In accordance with section 30, communication Governmnet about th invention is not deemed to be snticipated. Event2. Any display pf the invention in an exhibition nortifued by the Government and as mentioned here is not deemed to be anticipated undeer section 31(a) Event 3. In accordance with section 29(2)(a), tge incention was disclosed in a publication without the consent of Mr. Dutta, and so is nit deemed to be anticipated. However, he need to file the oatent application as soon as reasonably possible

[@biswadeepdas2495]

No, the patent application does not lose its novelty irrespective of circulating among the learned people as the patent application will not be deemed anticipated on the grounds that the invention was falsefully acquired by Kishori Lal without the consent of the true and first inventor, Krishna in accordance with Section 29(2)(a) , and as per Section 31(d) which states that the patent application will not be deemed anticipated if the application was published in a Learned Society like the Indian Botanical Society with the true inventor's (Krishna's) consent.

[@biswadeepdas2495]

Q6. As Piku has tested his invention on 1 January 2022 and submitted for patent grant on 31 October 2023 without submitting form 31 which allows the applicant a one year grace period for early disclosure of the invention, so Piku's application is liable to be rejected because he has passed the grace period and also did not submit form 31. There cannot be overcome as there are no such provisions under the Indian patent law for extension of appication beyond the grace period.

[@ebenyt]

Fie quiz 1:If the exhibition held by Oxford University is not officially recognized or authorized by the Indian Government or an international body like the Bureau of International Expositions (BIE), then it would not fall under the protection offered by Section 31.Therefore, the public disclosure of the invention in such an exhibition would be treated as a public disclosure, and the invention might lose its novelty. The 12-month grace period mentioned in Section 31 only applies to government-authorized exhibitions. In this case, since the exhibition was organized by Oxford University, which is not a government-recognized body (unless it falls under some special category or agreement), the novelty of the invention might be destroyed even if the applicant files a patent application within 12 months after the exhibition

[@ebenyt]

I am dr Renuka mam

[@advitiyas]

Q1. Chamanlal displayed his invention in an exhibition, and I need to check if the exhibition is notified in Govt gazette, if yes then he then his patent is not refused. But if it is a not a notified exhibition then his display of invention amount to public disclosure and becomes a valid prior art for the refusal of a patent on his invention. Q2. Under sec. 31.(d) Krishna Bhai's reading of a paper covering his invention shall NOT be deems to a valid prior art since it was done at a learned society and a patent application is filed within 12 months. Further, Kishori Lal flouting society norms and circulation the paper without consent of Krishna Bhai will have NO effect of the validity of the patent application because sec 31. (d) provides a grace period of 12 months for filing of a patent application. So, circulation done by Kishori Lal would NOT be considered as novelty destroying prior art. Q3. Ethyl Corporation’s Patent (1963 RPC155) and Ralph M. Parsons Application (1978 FSR 226) Q4. Event 1 - Communication with govt is allowed under sec 30 Event 2 - Exhibition of invention at Govt. Industrial fair allowed under sec 31.c Event 3 - Publication of invention by colleague with consent of inventor, the publication is shall NOT be deemed as valid prior art Based on the above-mentioned sections, the exhibition and publication in newspaper or communication Govt. official would NOT hamper his patent protection. Q5. Under sec. 31. (a) display of invention at Govt. notified fair shall not be deemed as public disclosure provided a patent application is filed with 12 months. Since the patent application was filed before expiry of grace period, the display is not a valid prior art reference. Q6. As per sec. 29.2(b) a reasonable trial of the invention shall NOT be deemed as valid prior art provided a patent application is filed as soon as reasonably practicable. A form 31 disclosing public use of invention for trial should be included while filing of the patent application. If forgotten to file form 31, the public display of invention would become a valid prior art, and a pr-grant opposition can be filed.

[@vaishallideshpannde7742]

Quiz 6 : Ask for the query.Piku invented a concrete that can build strong structures. He tested the invention to check if it works on 1st January 2022 He filed application for patent o 1st October 2023 Form 31 was not filed Can error be overcome? As per section 32 of patent Act 1970 if an invention is tested for its workability in public,the inventor can file application for patent within 12 months of such workability. Form 31 provides grace period to be availed by the inventor. In the present case, Piku tested the invention on 1st January 2022 and filed application on 1st October 2023,. i.e after period of 12 months. Accordingly,Piku testing workability of invention 1st January 2022 was novelty destroying as application for patent was filed on 1st October 2023. Even if form 31 is filed the same would not save.

[@jayantsinha92]

Quiz1: Chaman Lal patent will not be refused as he applied within 12 months after public display. Quiz2: No, it will not be considered as novelty destroying as he filled his application within 12 months and moreover Section 29(3) provides the right of original inventor protection . Quiz3: Section 31(d) provides the grace period of 12 months, which means even if subject matter is disclosed to learned society, invention is not considered as novelty destroying. Quiz4-Mr. Datta can file his application as his subject matter protects under exception of Anticipation i.e section 30;previous communication, Section 31;Public display, Section 29: Previous publication and Section 33;after provisional specification. He should submit the application along with all the evidence. Quiz 5: Mr. Ghanshyam is the original inventor and have a right to protect his invention under section 29(3), prior art doesn't invalidate his claim. Quiz6- Pikku's patent agent can immediately request for late filing with Form 31 (extension of time) with the condonation of delay. Quiz7: Part1: Grace period of 12 months has been provided to harmonize international practices, Form 31 has to be submitted along with patent application. Part 2: To get the patent filing extension, from 31 to be applied. No case law is available as of now.

[@vaishallideshpannde7742]

Quiz 2 : As per query -- Krishna Bhai read his Invention in conference organized by Indian Botanical Society. -- The society is a society of learned people. --- A member named Kishori Lal flouts the norms of the society and circulates the paper among scientists. Who are not members of Indian botanical society.; ---Krishna Bhai filed patent application within one year of reading of said paper. The issue to be addressed is whether Circulation done by Kishore Lal be considered as novelty destroying prior art. To prove that. Circulation done by Kishore Lal is not novelty, destroying prior art for patent application for Invention., Krishna Bhai needs to prove:  Kishori Bhai circulated the paper without the consent of Krishna Bhai,flouting the norms of the Indian botanical society not in the normal course of transaction of the society.  The paper was widely circulated amongst scientist equally learned like Krishna Bhai and accordingly, can be called as learned society (Without prejudice).  The application has been filed within one year of reading of paper for Indian botanical society. As Krishan Bhai has been able to prove the above,the circulation is not novelty, destroying prior art as per Section 31(d) .