Lalit Suryavansi’s Post

View profile for Lalit Suryavansi, graphic

Associate Partner Khurana & Khurana | Patent Agent and Attorney | Love nurturing Ideas, Fostering Innovations, Creating Patents, and Safeguarding Inventors' Rights

Section 2, clause 2(l) of the Indian patent act defines a new invention as below....if the anticipation of a new invention is to be reckoned from the filing date of the patent application with complete specification, what's the point of filing a provisional application for securing the so-called priority date?

  • No alternative text description for this image
Himanshu Bhatt

Principal Attorney - Drafting, Prosecution, Appeals

1y

Right. There are multiple instances in the Act that show ambiguity, if not error. Section 2(1)(j) stating invention is new product, which is the argument of Controllers preventing CRI device/system claims. Section 16 is yet another example.

Like
Reply
Adv. Swapnil Mahadeo Sanap

Partner, Patent Attorney, Head of Pune Office and Head of Engineering Patent Prosecution Team @ Khurana & Khurana | Angel Investor | Advocate | Registered Patent Agent (India) | IAM Strategy 300 | IAM Patent 1000

1y

Good point to be noted Adv. Lalit Suryavansi. This is exactly one of the reasons why we should suggest the applicants/inventors to not disclose their invention in greater technical details immediately after filing of provisional application and have to wait for filing of complete application, if not for publication of application.

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics