Comments on India’s draft biotech patent guidelines posted

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Comments on India’s draft biotech patent guidelines posted

The India Patent Office has released public feedback to its draft guidelines for the examination of biotechnology patents

The guidelines were released on December 11 2013 with a public comment period until January 11. The Patent Office received comments from Indian biotechnology firms, patent law firms, and groups such as the Organisation of Pharmaceuticals Producers of India (OPPO), the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and even the Japan Intellectual Property Association.

The Spicy IP blog described the publication as a “welcome development”.

The introduction to the draft guidelines state that they are intended to address serious concerns concerning “novelty, obviousness, industrial applicability, extent of disclosure and clarity in claims” which often arise in biotechnology patents. The guidelines also note that there are issues unique to biotechnology, “such as those relating to moral and ethical concerns, environmental safety, issues relating to patenting of ESTs (expressed sequence tags) of partial gene sequences, cloning of farm animals, stem cells, [and] gene diagnostics”.

Representatives of rights holders have expressed concern that the guidelines take too strict a view on patentability. OPPI, the industry group for large international pharmaceutical companies, said in its submission that the guidelines used an overly broad definition of obviousness. It also said that some of the provisions lacked clarity, that some limitations such as the prohibition of patenting methods of treatment appear to be broader in the guidelines’ examples than in the guideline text.

Similarly, Anand & Anand, who represents a number of large international pharmaceutical companies, stressed in its comments that the draft outlines do not have the force of law and argue that some of the illustrations are inconsistent with Patent Office practice.



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Value-added services give in-house counsel the satisfaction that they are getting more value for money, while law firms get the opportunity to win more work
A team at Boies Schiller Flexner is advising shoe company Kizik and parent company HandsFree Labs in the dispute
Nokia’s latest enforcement actions against Geely and Transsion joining Via LA’s AAC pool were also among the top talking points
Benjamin Kelly, the firm’s fifth IP partner hire in a little over one year, has experience in patent and trade secret disputes involving complex technologies
Half-year Talent Tracker data shows Pierson Ferdinand was among the most prolific hirers in the US, while in Europe, there has been a notable UPC swing
Exclusive data reveals in-house counsel want external legal advisers to build better client relationships and add value beyond routine work
Brett Sandford acted for Perplexity AI, which fended off the threat of a preliminary injunction to launch an AI-powered web browser
Stephen Yang joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to explain why his role requires him to wear many hats
The complaint follows a declaratory ruling issued by the England and Wales High Court last month that said Samsung is entitled to an interim licence
Tobias Hahn explains how the firm's multi-jurisdictional setup enabled it to secure an injunction on behalf of Fujifilm relating to defendant Kodak’s non-UPC activity
Gift this article