{"id":40110,"date":"2017-07-03T12:39:24","date_gmt":"2017-07-03T07:09:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/one\/?p=40110"},"modified":"2025-06-13T15:29:55","modified_gmt":"2025-06-13T09:59:55","slug":"indian-patent-stats-industrial-designs-startup-innovations-latest-decisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/indian-patent-stats-industrial-designs-startup-innovations-latest-decisions\/","title":{"rendered":"Patent stats, Industrial designs, Startup innovations, Latest Patent Decisions, Intellectual Property Exchange and NRDC, FTC versus Qualcomm, Computer-related Inventions guidelines, Monsanto, Patent Tip, ISR – PCT and more"},"content":{"rendered":"

Patent stats, Industrial designs, Startup innovations, Latest Patent Decisions, FTC versus Qualcomm, Computer-related Inventions guidelines, Monsanto, Patent Tip, International Search Report – PCT and more weekly news updates,\u00a0 presented by the Patent attorneys and experts of BananaIP Counsels, India\u2019s Premier New Age IP Firm.<\/p>\n

Patent Quote of the week<\/h2>\n
\n

“The art of obtaining a patent is in the language of the draft.\u201d Nisha Kurian, Managing Associate \u2013 Patent Portfolio, BananaIP Counsels<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Patent Stats from the Indian Patent Office<\/h2>\n

Early publications and ordinary publications of patent applications are abysmally low this week. While early publications have decreased by 26.09%, ordinary publications have decreased by 25.27%. There is, therefore a dip in the total publication by 25.32%.<\/p>\n

Early Publications<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
City<\/strong><\/td>\nPrevious Week<\/strong><\/td>\nThis Week<\/strong><\/td>\nPercentage of change<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Delhi<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n72.73% decrease<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mumbai<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n81.82% increase<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Chennai<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n52.71% decrease<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kolkata<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n100% decrease<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/strong><\/td>\n46<\/strong><\/td>\n34<\/strong><\/td>\n26.09% decrease<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Ordinary Publications<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
City<\/strong><\/td>\nPrevious Week<\/strong><\/td>\nThis Week<\/strong><\/td>\nPercentage of change<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Delhi<\/strong><\/td>\n274<\/td>\n145<\/td>\n47.08% decrease<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mumbai<\/strong><\/td>\n156<\/td>\n88<\/td>\n43.59% decrease<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Chennai<\/strong><\/td>\n275<\/td>\n301<\/td>\n9.45% increase<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kolkata<\/strong><\/td>\n23<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n56.2 decrease<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/strong><\/td>\n728<\/strong><\/td>\n544<\/strong><\/td>\n25.27% decrease<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

TOTAL PUBLICATIONS (Previous Week): 774<\/p>\n

TOTAL PUBLICATIONS (This Week): 578<\/p>\n

Percentage difference: 25.32% decrease<\/p>\n

PUBLICATIONS UNDER GRANT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
City<\/strong><\/td>\nPrevious Week<\/strong><\/td>\nThis Week<\/strong><\/td>\nPercentage of change<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Delhi<\/td>\n79<\/td>\n91<\/td>\n2.6% increase<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mumbai<\/td>\n19<\/td>\n24<\/td>\n26.67% increase<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Chennai<\/td>\n70<\/td>\n90<\/td>\n100% increase<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kolkata<\/td>\n47<\/td>\n43<\/td>\n104.35% increase<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/strong><\/td>\n215<\/strong><\/td>\n248<\/strong><\/td>\n43.33% increase<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Number of Applications published based on applicant city<\/strong><\/p>\n

A total of 12,592 patent publications have been made since the 1st<\/sup> of January this year, of which about 19% come from the major cities of Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi, Chennai, Hyderabad and Kolkata. The cities mentioned here have contributed a total of 2,442 patent applications till date of which Mumbai has contributed 826 applications which makes it the largest contributor among the mentioned cities. Bangalore comes in second by having contributed 582 applications. Bangalore has contributed a whopping 90 applications this week which has significantly placed Delhi at a distant third position with a total of 460 applications till date. While Chennai and Hyderabad have contributed 273 and 209 applications till date, Kolkata is 8 applications short of reaching the 100 mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
List of Cities<\/strong><\/td>\n1st<\/sup>\u00a0January 2017 \u2013 till date<\/strong><\/td>\n17th<\/sup> June 2017- 23rd<\/sup> June 2017<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mumbai<\/td>\n826<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Bangalore<\/td>\n582<\/td>\n90<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Delhi<\/td>\n460<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Chennai<\/td>\n273<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Hyderabad<\/td>\n209<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kolkata<\/td>\n92<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Total number applications published by the Indian Patent Office since the 1st of January 2017 till\u00a0the 3rd<\/sup>\u00a0of July 2017: 12592<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  • Early publications: 1317<\/li>\n
  • Ordinary Publications:11275<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Total number of patents granted by the Indian Patent Office since the 1st of January 2017 till 3rd<\/sup>\u00a0of July 2017: 5629<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    • Delhi \u2013 2644<\/li>\n
    • Mumbai \u2013 563<\/li>\n
    • Kolkata \u2013 1130<\/li>\n
    • Chennai \u20131607<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      Industrial Designs<\/h2>\n

      Total designs registered this Week: 156<\/p>\n

      Total designs registered in the previous Week: 154<\/p>\n

      Percentage Difference: 1.3% increase<\/p>\n

      Controller\u2019s Decisions<\/h2>\n

      Tencent\u2019s patent application refused by the Chennai Patent Office<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Chinese technology major Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Company, one of the largest internet companies in the world and owner of instant messenger platforms such as QQ and WeChat has been refused a patent application by the Chennai Patent Office for its invention titled “METHOD, SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR CHANGING AVATAR IN ONLINE GAME\u201d.<\/p>\n

      Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Kasthuri M refused Tencent\u2019s patent application 6436\/CHENP\/2009 after it was found that the invention claimed a method of playing a game in the form of a software product which is a Non-patentable subject matter and not allowable u\/s 3(k) and 3(m) of the Patents Act<\/p>\n

      Abstract: A method for changing an avatar in an online game includes: generating an avatar self-defined data packet comprising complete data of an avatar according to an avatar characteristic self-defined data packet from a client corresponding to a logon account. Wherein the avatar characteristic self-defined data packet reflects modification or creation made by a player to the avatar; and transmitting the avatar self-defined data packet to the client corresponding to the logon account providing the avatar characteristic self-defined data packet, and \/or a second client participating in the online game. A system and an apparatus for changing an avatar in an online game are also provided.<\/em><\/p>\n

      Patents, Startups, Innovations<\/h2>\n

      Startup files patent for machine <\/strong>that segregates waste in minutes<\/strong><\/p>\n

      A\u00a0startup founded by two Bengaluru-based women has come up with the prototype of a machine that might just resolve the garbage woes of every city and municipal corporation in the country. The startup called Trashcon, founded by RM Nivedha and Aishwarya, has developed a semi-automatic municipal waste segregator that segregates biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste within minutes.<\/p>\n

      A bag of municipal waste, including degradable and non-biodegradable waste, is dumped into the machine, which looks like a flour mill. After being segregated and crushed in different chambers, the degradable waste and biodegradable waste is pumped out separately on the ground. The segregator has a capacity of 20-30 kilos and completes the entire exercise in 10 minutes. The invention has been applied a patent for.<\/p>\n

      IPO Updates<\/h2>\n

      Patent office publishes \u201cRevised Guidelines for Examination of Computer-related Inventions (CRIs)\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

      In an order dated June 30, the Office of the Controller General Of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (CGPDTM) issued the revised guidelines for Computer Related Inventions (CRI).<\/p>\n

      The revised guidelines clearly state that a mathematical or business method or algorithms or a computer programme per se are not patentable. The revised guidelines have also added more clarity to the issues related to hardware\/ software relation. For instance the revised guidelines clearly state that a method claim should focus on the underlying substance of the invention and not the particular form in which it is being claimed and that \u2018mere manipulations of abstract idea or solving purely mathematical problem\/equations without specifying a practical application\u2019 can attract the exclusion under the category of the mathematical method claims which are not patentable.<\/p>\n

      Government Updates<\/h2>\n

      Intellectual Property Exchange for India soon<\/strong><\/p>\n

      NRDC (National Research Development Corporation) chairman and managing director H. Purushotham has said that India will soon have an Intellectual Property (IP) Exchange concept which would allow individuals and commercial entities both in India and overseas to buy and sell intellectual property rights across various sectors. The exchange will be developed under the ministry of science and technology through the National Research Development Corporation (NRDC).<\/p>\n

      The director also added that the idea of the exchange is to exploit the commercial viability of patents in India which issues over 2 lakh patents every year that have potential for commercialization.<\/p>\n

      Patent disputes<\/h2>\n

      U.S. antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm to proceed<\/strong><\/p>\n

      U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California in San Jose has denied Qualcomm’s motion to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission\u00a0against it. This adds to Qualcomm\u2019s kitty of troubles as it continues to contest\u00a0separate law suits filed against it by Apple and antitrust law suits filed elsewhere around the world, including one in China and South Korea.<\/p>\n

      Intel Corp\u00a0and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. which are not parties to the case, filed briefs opposing Qualcomm’s attempt to have the case dismissed.<\/p>\n

      The FTC sued Qualcomm in January, alleging the company engaged in anticompetitive tactics to maintain a monopoly on the chips that let cell phones connect to mobile data networks.<\/p>\n

      Case reference: No. 5:17-cv-00220 in the Northern District of California.<\/p>\n

      Plant Varieties News<\/h2>\n

      PPVFRA\u2019s notice to dispense with requirement of NOC\u2019s objected to by Hybrid seed manufacturers<\/strong><\/p>\n

      As speculated ast week, Hybrid seed manufacturers have opposed the decision of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers\u2019 Rights Authority (PPVFRA) to dispense with the requirement of the no-objection certificate (NoC) from the trait developer for breeding Bt cotton varieties with genetically modified (GM) traits.<\/p>\n

      Companies such as Monsanto, Mahyco, and others\u00a0have said that the decision of the PPVFR authority to dispense with NOC\u2019s will create a major hurdle to fresh investment in agricultural research.<\/p>\n

      BananaIP\u2019s Patent Tip of the Week<\/h2>\n

      International Search Reports \u2013 the way forward.<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Applicants are often confused as to what they ought to do once an International Search Report (ISR) has been issued by the International Search Authority (ISA) in respect of their PCT application. To answer this briefly, the Applicant normally has the following options and can choose one of them.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. The applicant can submit an \u201cinformal response\u201d, without amending the patent specification<\/strong>. This informal response must be submitted to the IB within 30 months from the priority date, but preferably before expiry of 28 months from the priority date.<\/li>\n
      2. The applicant can submit an \u201cinformal response\u201d, with <\/strong>amendment to the specification (claims)<\/strong>. The amendment in such a case, must be submitted to the IB within 2 months from the date of transmittal of the ISR to the Applicant or 16 months from the priority date, whichever time limit expires later.<\/li>\n
      3. The applicant need not respond to the International Bureau<\/strong> if the ISR is \u201cpositive\u201d, and may decide on filing one or more national phase patent applications within 30\/31 months. If the ISR is negative the Applicant\u00a0should consider filing a response to decrease the cost of prosecuting national phase application(s)<\/li>\n
      4. The applicants can file a<\/strong> demand for International Preliminary Examination (IPE)<\/strong>. An Applicant may choose this option if the ISR was \u201cnegative\u201d, and the Applicant chooses to submit a response and\/or amend the patent specification to pursue the IPEA to provide a \u201cpositive\u201d International Preliminary Examination Report (IPER). The deadline for filing the demand is 3 months from the date of transmittal of the ISR or 22 months from the priority date, whichever expires later.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        The post offers an in-depth review of recent Indian patent statistics, notable patent office decisions, and innovation trends. It also analyses the latest legal updates, regulatory changes, and disputes in the intellectual property landscape.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":8,"footnotes":""},"categories":[36,6,14,247],"tags":[183,419,42,1196,8657,2789,310,8643],"class_list":["post-40110","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-industrial-designs","category-intellectual-property","category-patents","category-plant-varieties","tag-bananaip-counsels","tag-computer-related-inventions","tag-indian-patent-office","tag-industrial-designs","tag-intellectual-property-exchange","tag-patent-disputes","tag-patent-statistics","tag-startup-innovations"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40110","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40110"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40110\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":135906,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40110\/revisions\/135906"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}