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

In-house counsel explain why firms should provide risk management advice that helps them achieve their goals
Attorneys at four firms explain the AI trends they expect in the future, including a potential shift in who plaintiffs sue for copyright infringement
The dispute at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court pits Dryrobe against D-Robe and will include a ‘genericide’ element
Novo Nordisk losing patent rights covering Ozempic in Canada and a US Supreme Court decision favouring Ed Sheeran were also among the top talking points
The court will hand down its ruling in Iconix v Dream Pairs on Tuesday, June 24, in a case that concerns post-sale confusion
Developments included a stay in a row concerning the UPC’s jurisdiction and a timeline for the rollout of the long-awaited new CMS
Jorg Thomaier, who has been head of IP at the German pharma company since 2010, will leave later this year and hand the reins to the company’s head of patents
Companies must conduct thorough IP due diligence – even if it may not be mandatory
Celia Cheah at Wong & Partners in Malaysia says she is aiming to tap into the Baker McKenzie member firm’s international network and expand its IP portfolio
A team of partners that joined Boies Schiller Flexner say they would like to double the firm’s patent litigation capabilities
Gift this article