This week’s Patent and Design data has been compiled from the Official journal of patents and designs, published by the patent office on the 10th of June 2022. These statistics are presented to you by the Patent attorneys and experts of BananaIP Counsels, India’s leading Intellectual Property Firm.
INDIAN PATENT STATISTICS
A total of 1,624 patent applications have been published in the 23rd issue of the Patent Journal, 2022. Out of the 1,624 applications published in the journal,407 applications account for early publications while 1,217 applications account for ordinary publications or publications occurring after the 18 – month period. A total of 408 applications have been granted last week as compared to 708 grants in the week preceding the last thereby marking a decrease of about 42.37%
Early Publications
| City | Previous Week | This Week | Percentage of change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delhi | 150 | 442 | 194.67% increase |
| Mumbai | 182 | 253 | 39.01% increase |
| Chennai | 622 | 431 | 30.71% decrease |
| Kolkata | 74 | 91 | 22.97% increase |
| Total | 1,028 | 1,217 | 18.39% increase |
Ordinary Publications
| City | No. of FER Issued |
|---|---|
| Delhi | 425 |
| Mumbai | 219 |
| Chennai | 363 |
| Kolkata | 62 |
| Total | 1,069 |
TOTAL PUBLICATIONS (Previous Week): 1,442
TOTAL PUBLICATIONS (This Week):1,624
Percentage difference: 12.62% increase
FIRST EXAMINATION REPORT (FER) STATISTICS
A total of 1,069 FER’s were issued last week. Applicants and their agents can check if any of their patent applications have been examined by referring to the journal available here.
| City | Previous Week | This Week | Percentage of change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delhi | 252 | 138 | 45.24% decrease |
| Mumbai | 111 | 77 | 30.63% decrease |
| Chennai | 257 | 146 | 43.19% decrease |
| Kolkata | 88 | 47 | 46.59% decrease |
| Total | 708 | 408 | 42.37% decrease |
Publications under Grant
| List of Cities | 1st of January till date | 3rd June 2022 to 10th June 2022 |
|---|---|---|
| Delhi | 624 | 17 |
| Mumbai | 809 | 69 |
| Pune | 614 | 26 |
| Bangalore | 893 | 49 |
| Chennai | 1,090 | 40 |
| Hyderabad | 641 | 49 |
| Kolkata | 203 | 7 |
Number of Applications published based on ‘Applicant City’
Of the total 1,624 patent applications published in the journal last week, Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Kolkata have contributed a total of 257 applications. The total applications from each of the previously mentioned cities are as follows – 17 applications from Delhi, 69 applications from Mumbai, 26 applications from Pune, 49 applications from Bangalore, 40 applications from Chennai, 49 applications from Hyderabad and 7 applications for Kolkata.
| Particulars | No. of Applications |
|---|---|
| Total early publications | 9,090 |
| Total ordinary publications | 20,329 |
| Total applications published | 29,419 |
| Total grants in Delhi | 4,942 |
| Total grants in Mumbai | 2,165 |
| Total grants in Chennai | 4,909 |
| Total grants in Kolkata | 1,786 |
| Total Grants | 13,802 |
| Total applications examined | 31,588 |
PATENT STATISTICS SUMMARY (1ST OF JANUARY TILL DATE)
| Rule No. | Proposed Draft Amendments | Our Suggestions | Specific Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 3(1)(b)(ii) | is defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, invasive of another’s privacy, including bodily privacy, insulting or harassing on the basis of gender, libellous, racially or ethnically objectionable, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling, or otherwise inconsistent with or contrary to the laws in force; | (a) is pornographic, paedophilic, invasive of another’s privacy, including bodily privacy, or otherwise inconsistent with or contrary to the laws in force; or (b) when viewed by a reasonable person, is defamatory or libellous, obscene, insulting or harassing on the basis of gender, religion, disability, class, creed or caste, promotes or supports harm to self or others, racially or ethnically objectionable, is hurting sentiments of any protected group/class of individuals, or encouraging money laundering or gambling; | The suggestion is made to make the provision more specific and inclusive of the entities that could be affected or instances that could take place due to content on an intermediary platform. The suggested provision also provides an objective standard, using which the intermediary may determine if the content violates the Rules or any other applicable provisions. |
| Rule 3(1)(m) | (m) the intermediary shall take all reasonable measures to ensure accessibility of its services to users along with reasonable expectation of due diligence, privacy and transparency; | (m) the intermediary shall take all reasonable measures, including access services as defined under Rule 2(1)(b), to ensure accessibility of its services to all users along with reasonable expectation of due diligence, privacy and transparency; | n the interest of making the provision more specific, based on Rule 2(1)(b) which is being defined as “…any measure, including technical measures such as closed captioning, subtitles and audio descriptions, through which the accessibility of online curated content may be improved for persons with disabilities;”, we are suggesting the accessibility of services offered by intermediaries should specifically include persons with disabilities. Thus, by referring to the access services defined under Rule 2(1)(b), and incorporating this definition in the relevant clauses, the provision acquires more clarity about the measures required to be taken to enhance accessibility of the intermediary platforms. Further, in light of ensuring accessibility and appropriate accommodations to make the platform more inclusive, the suggested provision helps to bring consistency in accordance with our earlier comments on accessibility. |
| Rule 3(2)(a) | 3(2)(a)(i) acknowledge the complaint, including suspension, removal or blocking of any user or user account or any complaint from its users in the nature of request for removal of information or communication link relating to sub-clauses (i) to (x) of the clause (b) under sub-rule (1) of rule 3, within twenty-four hours and dispose of such complaint within a period of fifteen days from the date of its receipt; Provided that the complaint in the nature of request for removal of information or communication link relating to sub-clauses (i) to (x) of the clause (b) under sub-rule (1) of rule 3, shall be acted upon expeditiously and redressed within 72 hours of reporting: Provided further that appropriate safeguards may be developed by the intermediary to avoid any misuse by users. (ii) receive and acknowledge any order, notice or direction issued by the Appropriate Government, any competent authority or a court of competent jurisdiction. | 3(2)(a)(i) acknowledge the complaint, including any accompanying request for suspension, removal or blocking of any user or user account or any complaint from its users in the nature of request for removal of information or communication link relating to sub-clauses (i) to (x) of the clause (b) under sub-rule (1) of rule 3, within twenty-four hours; (removed: and dispose of such complaint within a period of fifteen days from the date of its receipt;) (ii) dispose of the complaint within a period of fifteen days from the date of its receipt by communicating to the complainant adequate reason(s) for such disposal: Provided that the complaint in the nature of request for removal of information or communication link relating to sub-clauses (i) to (x) of the clause (b) under sub-rule (1) of rule 3, shall be acted upon expeditiously and redressed within 72 hours of reporting: Provided further that appropriate safeguards may be developed by the intermediary to avoid any misuse by users. (iii) receive and acknowledge any order, notice or direction issued by the Appropriate Government or its agency, any competent authority or a court of competent jurisdiction within 24 hours. | This suggestion has been made in order to provide more clarity in the existing provisions. The suggested provision is aimed towards increasing transparency and imposing a time limit for intermediaries to comply with the directions or orders of the court, Appropriate Government and its agencies. |
| Rule 3(3) | (3)(3)(c) The Grievance Appellate Committee shall deal with such appeal expeditiously and shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal finally within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the appeal; (d) Every order passed by the Grievance Appellate Committee shall be complied by the concerned Intermediary. | The Grievance Appellate Committee shall acknowledge such appeal within 7 days, deal with such appeal expeditiously and shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal finally within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the appeal; 3(3)(d) Every order passed by the Grievance Appellate Committee shall be complied with by the concerned Intermediary, as early as possible, but in no case later than 24 hours from the date of receipt of such order. | The suggested provision imposes a time limit on the intermediary to acknowledge an appeal to the GAC, and to comply with the GAC order. The suggested provisions aim to increase transparency in the formation of the committee, eligibility and selection of members, exclusion of interested parties from constituting such a board, and so on. Considering that the provision of information in a complaint could be sensitive in nature, more clarity is necessary with respect to the GAC’s functioning and its tenure. |
| Rule 4(4) | A significant social media intermediary shall endeavour to deploy technology-based measures, including automated tools or other mechanisms to proactively identify information that depicts any act or simulation in any form depicting rape, child sexual abuse or conduct, whether explicit or implicit, or any information which is exactly identical in content to information that has previously been removed or access to which has been disabled on the computer resource of such intermediary under clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 3, and shall display a notice to any user attempting to access such information stating that such information has been identified by the intermediary under the categories referred to in this sub-rule: | A significant social media intermediary shall (Remove: endeavour to) deploy technology-based measures, including automated tools or other mechanisms only to proactively identify information that depicts any act or simulation in any form depicting rape, child sexual abuse or conduct, whether explicit or implicit, or any information which is exactly identical in content to information that has previously been removed or access to which has been disabled on the computer resource of such intermediary under clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 3, and shall display a notice to any user attempting to access such information stating that such information has been identified by the intermediary under the categories referred to in this sub-rule: | The suggested provision is intended to narrow down the scope of what can be restricted or flagged by the intermediary. It is our observation that this provision may be interpreted in a way that allows intermediaries to filter out content that might not necessarily be infringing on anyone’s rights. Removal of such information is then left in an unsystematic way to the intermediary’s optional interests. This could be recognized as restrictive of the user’s freedom to use the platform. Hence, our suggestion firstly makes it mandatory to make use of the measures to identify information as stated in the provision and it also limits these measures to be used to flag only such content. |
| Rule 4(6) | The significant social media intermediary shall implement an appropriate mechanism for the receipt of complaints under sub-rule (2) of rule 3 and grievances in relation to the violation of provisions under this rule, which shall enable the complainant to track the status of such complaint or grievance by providing a unique ticket number for every complaint or grievance received by such intermediary: | The significant social media intermediary shall implement an appropriate mechanism for the receipt of complaints under sub-rule (2) of rule 3 and grievances in relation to the violation of provisions under this rule, which shall enable the complainant to track the status of such complaint or grievance by providing a unique ticket number traceable on a complaint tracking portal or any other such mechanism which displays the current status for every complaint or grievance received by such intermediary: | The suggested provision is aimed at increasing transparency in the redressal process of the intermediary. In numerous instances, the intermediaries after a casual acknowledgement of a complaint, simply deny the action sought near to the time when the complaint is about to lapse/expire. Despite the unique ticket number, there is a possibility of information being kept from disclosing to the person making the complaint due to the absence of a uniform tracking mechanism. The suggested provision mandates that significant social media intermediaries must have a complaint tracking portal, or any other such mechanism, on which the complainant can enter its unique ticket number to view the current status or the stage of scrutiny of its complaint(s). |
| Rule 7 | Where an intermediary fails to observe these rules, the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 79 of the Act shall not be applicable to such intermediary and the intermediary shall be liable for punishment under any law for the time being in force including the provisions of the Act and the Indian Penal Code. | The Rule rightly proposes the removal of safe harbour and/or protection generally available to intermediaries but does not provide any time period with respect to the same. Neither does the rule provide any mechanism for reviving the intermediary safe harbour or protection. The same maybe incorporated in the rules to give clarity or provide clarity in this aspect. |
INDIAN INDUSTRIAL DESIGN STATISTICS
The design office has registered a total of 123 designs this week. The total designs registered from the 1st of January 2022 till date now adds to a total of 7,672 applications.
- Total designs registered in the last to last Week: 158
- Total designs registered this Week: 123
Total designs registered from the 1st of January 2022 till date: 7,672
Data compiled by Mahasweta Bhattacharjee, Junior Patent Associate, BananaIP Counsels
If you have any questions, or need any clarifications, please feel free to write to contact@bananaip.com
Disclaimer: Kindly note that the news bulletin has been put together from different sources, primary and secondary, and BananaIP’s reporters may not have verified all the news published in the bulletin. You may write to contact@bananaip.com for corrections and take down.