India: File Foreign Application Prosecution History With Indian Patent Office

Last Updated: 6 March 2013
Article by Ajay Chandru, Aditi Jha and Gowree Gokhale

What is the Section 8 Requirement?

Section 8 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 comprises of two mandatory requirements: voluntary filing of information (Section 8 (1)) and filing of information upon request by the Controller (Section 8(2)) in relation to patent applications filed outside India for the same or substantially the same invention.

Voluntary filing:

  • At the time of filing of the Indian Patent Application ("IPA") Form 3 is required to be filed with Indian Patent office:
  • Providing the following information about foreign filing : the name of the country where the application is being prosecuted, the application number, date of filing of the application, status of the application, date of publication and date of grant; and
  • Giving an undertaking that up to the date of grant of patent in India applicant would keep the patent office informed in writing the details regarding corresponding applications filed outside India.
  • From the date of filing of the IPA till the grant of the Indian patent, the applicant is required to file the above information in relation to any new filing done outside India, within 6 months of such filing.1

The obligation to file this information is not only in relation to the patent application that the patent applicant in India may itself be prosecuting outside India but also applies to same or substantially the same patent applications being prosecuted by a person other than the applicant, where to his knowledge, such an application is being prosecuted by some person through whom he claims or by some person deriving title from him, he shall file along with his application. Thus, for example if a patent application for same or substantially the same invention has been assigned by the Indian patent applicant to a third party in the US, information regarding the same also has to be filed with patent office by the patent applicant in India.

Information to be filed upon request by the Controller:

Any time after an application for patent has been filed in India, the controller can request details regarding the processing of the patent application in a country outside India and in such an event the applicant has to furnish the information within a period of six months from the date of receiving such request from the controller.2 Such a request is typically made by the controller through an examination report.

How to comply with the requirements of Section 8?

On reading of Section 8, several issues arise:

  • How the expression "substantially same invention" should be interpreted?
  • Is there difference in the information to be provided under Section 8(1) and 8(2)?
  • Does "details regarding the processing of application in a country outside India" include examination reports, prior art, office action or other documents involved in the prosecution of the corresponding patent outside India.
  • If yes, then the amount of information that has to be provided especially in cases of PCT applications, since most of these applications enter national phase in multiple countries, will be voluminous plus translations where required will have to be provided.

The High Courts in India, Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and the controller in opposition and revocation matters in the recent past have addressed the issue of compliance with Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970. It is essential to briefly discuss these cases, in order to determine the best possible way to comply with Section 8.

Chemtura Corporation vs. Union of India3

Chemtura Corporation ("Chemtura") was granted Indian Patent No. 213608 on January 9, 2008. Union of India ("UOI") alleged that Chemtura had failed to make a Section 8 disclosure on their own but also blatantly mislead the Patent Office when the Patent Office through its letter dated October 20, 2004 had called upon Chemtura to disclose "details regarding the search and/or examination report including claims of the application allowed.... in respect of same or substantially same invention filed in any one of the major patent office such as USPTO, EPO and JPO etc" . In its response Chemtura did not submit any relevant information. In fact Chemtura had replied by a letter dated October 17, 2005 that there had been no further development and thus no further information was required to be submitted.

According to Chemtura as on October 20, 2004 there was no further development with regard to the same or substantially the same invention outside India. Chemtura contended that the search and the examination report are required to be furnished only if it has resulted in allowing of claims by the foreign Patent Office. The Delhi High Court did not accept this argument. The High Court observed that the patent applicant was required to furnish any and all foreign search reports in its possession at the time of its reply to the patent office i.e. as on October 17, 2005. The court referred to the US patent office (USPTO) prosecution history and stated that USPTO had issued multiple office actions repeatedly rejecting Chemtura's patent application until the claims were finally narrowed down to an acceptable limit and all these amendments took place before October 17, 2005. Similarly, broad claims in its European application had been narrowed down due to several prior art citations and the same was also not disclosed. The Delhi High Court held that an applicant was required to periodically update the Controller on the current status of the corresponding foreign applications and that mere furnishing of information on the status of the application did not satisfy the requirements of Section 8 (2) of the Act.

The Delhi High Court did hold that all the foreign search reports have to be filed with the patent office at the time of filling a response to the examination report. However, it seems that the judgment of the court was greatly influenced by the fact that Chemtura did not disclose the adverse USPTO and European prosecution history. This case essentially tells us that a conduct of the applicant while complying with the Section 8 requirement is very important. Thus, if the applicant has been forthcoming and has not tried to conceal any adverse examination reports, it will greatly help the applicant in establishing their case for complying with the Section 8 requirements.

Roche vs. Cipla4

Roche was granted an Indian Patent No. 196774(IN '774) on February 23, 2007 and application for the Indian Patent was filed on March 13, 1996. 'IN 774 was a combination of Polymorph version A+B of a drug. Roche had filed an infringement action against Cipla for infringing IN '774.

In its counter claim Cipla alleged that Roche did not disclose while prosecuting IN '774 about US Patent 6900221 ( US '221) which was filed subsequent to the filling of IN '774 in 2000. Cipla contented that 'US 221 consisted of a polymorph B version of the drug and thus relates to the same or substantially the same invention and should have been disclosed to the controller as required under Section 8.

According to Roche polymorphic version B of the said compound would not come within the meaning of same or substantially the same invention. Further, Roche also contended that Polymorphic version B compound is different from IN '774 patent and therefore Roche was not required to disclose US '221 under Section 8.

A corresponding Indian patent application IN '507 for US '21 had been applied by Roche. An opposition proceeding was filed against 'IN 507 and in this proceedings the controller had held that IN '507 and IN '774 were similar or substantially similar and an order regarding the same was passed by the controller on December 15, 2008. Roche contended that they were always under the belief prior to the said order of the controller that IN '774 and US '221 are different, so they could not have filed US '221 prior to the order dated December 15, 2008 and since IN '774 was granted in February 2007, Roche did not have any obligation under section 8 to disclose US '221.

The Delhi High Court observed that "plaintiffs who claim to be one of the leading companies in medicinal research and masters in chemical science cannot be oblivious to the fact that conversion of one compound into another Polymorph version may be either same or similar to the earlier version of the compound. It is not reasonable to presume that upon the decision of the Controller in the year 2008 only, the said researchers remained in the company of plaintiffs were enlightened of the fact that both the patents are actually the same or substantially the same inventions." Therefore, the court concluded that it cannot be said that only after the order was passed on December 15, 2008 Roche was able to understand the similarity between the IN '774 and IN '221.

Further, Roche in its infringement claim had contended that the drugs made available in the market by Cipla, was a polymorph version B of the drug and this drug fell within the scope of IN '774. The court held that in view of this Roche cannot contend while filing two applications for patents in India IN '774 and IN '507 it was not aware that both patents were for same or substantially the same invention.

Hence, the court held that Roche had not complied with the requirements of section 8. However, the court did not revoke the patent. The court stated that the discretion to revoke or not to revoke a patent lies with the Court and this exists by use of the word "may" under Section 64 of the Patents Act. In view of the fact that Cipla to avoid a claim of infringement had argued that both the compounds as claimed in IN '774 and IN '507 are different in their Polymorphic forms, therefore the in effect supported the position that the combination of Polymorph A and B as contained in IN '774 is distinct from Polymorphic version B which is contained in US '221.

This case clearly illustrates that it is not just the information regarding the same application that has to be filed with the patent office but also the information regarding substantially the same patent applications has to be filed to comply with the requirements of Section 8. It is interesting to note here that the court did not revoke the patent even though it concluded that Section 8 had not been complied by Roche. The Delhi High Court relied on the fact that Section 64 uses the word 'may' and this gives the Court discretion not to revoke the patent based on the facts.

This decision has been heavily criticized at various forums, the argument being that if the court finds under Section 64 that the patent is not novel or lacks inventive step then the court does not have any discretion not to revoke the patent and the similar reasoning also applies to non-compliance with Section 8. It is also interesting to note that Section 64 states that a patent can be revoked on "any of the following grounds". Thus, if the court finds that Section 8 has not been complied with, solely on this ground the court can revoke the patent.

Tata Chemicals vs. Hindustan Lever5

Hindustan Lever (Lever) was granted Indian patent No. 195937 (IN '937) on August 26, 2005. Tata Chemicals (Tata) filed a revocation petition before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to revoke IN '937 on multiple grounds under Section 64 including non-compliance with Section 8.

Tata contended that Lever had not filed the International Preliminary Examination Report (IPER) issued by the PCT search authority before the patent office and thus Lever had not complied with requirements under Section 8 of the Patents Act.

Lever contended that since section 8 (2) stated that information/details pertaining only to a country outside India has to be filed, IPER did not fall within this ambit because it was issued by a PCT search authority, which is an inter-government body and not a country outside India.

However, IPAB held that IPER related to processing of an application in a country outside India and that "the word 'processing' is an all-encompassing word, it would take within it the series of actions or steps to be taken in order to achieve a particular end." Thus, the Respondent was obligated to file the IPER for complying with Section 8.

It is pertinent to note here that in this case the very patent that was discussed in IPER was also cited by the Indian examiner in the FER. However, IPAB held that this did not waive off the duty of Lever to submit all relevant information.

The purpose of Section 8 is to provide assistance to patent office in prosecution of the Indian patent application by providing information of other patent offices as regards novelty, non-obvious, utility and other observations. In our view Section 8 requirement should be read in the light of this intent. In this matter, if the IPER was already to the knowledge of the Indian patent office, non-filing of the same should not have been considered as violation of Section 8.

Richter Gedeon vs. Cipla6

Cipla filed a post grant opposition to the Indian Patent No. 202297 of Richter Gedeon under Section 25(2) of the Patens Act alleging multiple grounds including non-compliance with Section 8. The patentee had filed a national phase application in India on December 9, 2003 with an undertaking under Form 3. The next updated Form 3 was filed on October 25, 2004 only mentioning the patent application's entry into several countries. The Controller observed that "even though substantial updated information on the corresponding application filed in foreign countries were expected to be available like the information in JP and USA, the same was not informed to the Indian Patent Office. I view this irregularity by patentee as violation of provision as required under Section 8 of Patents Act. I conclude that such a ground of opposition is validly established by the opponent." From the facts narrated in the order it appears that the applicant had voluntarily abandoned the JP and USA applications after the grant of the Indian patent. The obligation to provide updated information with the patent office, is applicable till the Indian patent is granted and not thereafter. However, from the order of the Controller it appears that the applicant may not have kept the Patent Office updated about the information in relation to the JP and USA prosecution before the grant of patent.


The objective of submitting documents under Section 8 is to assist the examiner in examining the patent application.7 In most of the cases especially patent applications entering through National Phase, the patent application will be simultaneously being prosecuted in multiple countries. The search/ examination reports and office actions being generated in all such prosecutions will be voluminous and also be in multiple languages and translations of the same will also have to be provided to the Indian patent office. This essentially becomes a very expensive proposition for the patent applicants. Further, submitting a large amount of documents to the patent office does not assist the patent office in carrying out effective examination of the patent application. Thus, it is essential to determine the documents that need to be submitted to satisfy the Section 8 requirement. This task becomes more difficult since all the decisions regarding Section 8 are inconsistent and do not exactly specify what documents need to be submitted to comply with Section 8. Even the Draft Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure does not provide any guidance regarding complying with Section 8 requirements.

Some guidance with regard to this can be obtained by determining the intent of the legislature in formulating this section. "Report on the revision of Patent Law" by Justice Ayyangar, September, 1959 had formed the basis for the Patents Act, 1970 wherein it has been stated in the section on notes on clauses with respect to Section 8 what has to be submitted to the patent office is "the objections if any, raised by the patent office of such countries on the ground of want of novelty and patentability or otherwise and the amendments directed to be made or actually made to the specification or claims in the foreign country"8 has to be filed with Indian Patent Office. Further, the Section as recommended by Justice Ayyangar read as "an undertaking that he would up to the date of the acceptance of the complete specification, communicate to the Controller details of all objections taken, orders passed on the ground of the invention lacking novelty or patentability and the amendments effected to the specification or claims"9 This clearly shows that legislature intended this information submitted by the applicant to assist the Controller in examining the patent.

This provision was introduced when the Indian patent office did not have ready access to the information in relation to foreign patents. With the advent of internet and most important patent office having their data online, access as such is not a hurdle any more.

In view thereof, the patent office should ideally come out with the clear guidance as to what is required to be submitted and when to comply with the requirements of Section 8. However, the applicant will still have to diligently analyze all the documents relating to the processing of the patent application outside India periodically to identify the documents that need to be filed before the Indian Patent Office, to avoid any challenge either during the prosecution or post grant of Indian patent.


1. Rule 12(2) of the Patent Rules, 2003.

2. Rule 12(3).

3. 2009(41)PTC260(Del).

4. 2012(52)PTC1(Del).

5. MANU/IC/0091/2012.

6. Controller's decision on a post grant opposition available at decision%20202297.pdf (last visited 15th January 2013).

7. "Report on the revision of Patent Law" by Justice Ayyangar, September, 1959, page 138 available at Rajagopala_Ayyangar_Report_61-80.pdf (last visited 21st January, 2013).

8. Id

9. Id

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Ajay Chandru
Aditi Jha
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Singh & Associates
S.S. Rana & Co. Advocates
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Singh & Associates
S.S. Rana & Co. Advocates
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions