Introduction
As India's innovation landscape grows, the efficiency and reliability of its patent system have become more important than ever. However, patent practitioners and applicants continue to face persistent and continued challenges in navigating the procedural aspects of the Indian Patent Office (IPO) owing to several operational and policy-level concerns that hinder the effectiveness of patent prosecution. This article highlights such key systemic challenges and proposes practical reforms to strengthen the country's patent ecosystem.
The Broken Machinery: Identifying Key Challenges
Lack of Timelines and Transparency
Operational inefficiencies within the Indian Patent office remain one of the most pressing concerns affecting the Indian patent system. This is primarily due to the absence of prescribed timelines for certain key procedural aspects, particularly between the request for examination and issuance of the First Examination Report (FER), and the lack of visibility into subsequent actions. Although the Patent Rules prescribe timelines for some post-FER activities, several critical stages of prosecution remain undefined and unpredictable.
This unpredictability does not end with ths issuance of the FER. Even after the applicant has responded to the First Examination Report, there are often no clear indications of the next procedural step or its expected timeline. The lack of system-generated milestones or tracking creates uncertainty and frustration, and ultimately leads to procedural inefficiencies, delayed decision-making, and increased follow-up burden on applicants. The Indian patent portal (https://ipindiaservices.gov.in/publicsearch/) does display basic statuses of an application, such as "FER issued," "reply filed," "under examination," "hearing notice issued," or "granted." However, it does not provide detailed, real-time updates on critical procedural milestones. For instance, it does not show:
- Whether hearing minutes have been uploaded,
- Whether the Controller has acted on post-hearing submissions,
- If an internal decision has been made but not yet published,
- Delays in recording assignments or uploading key documents; or
- whether forms filed (e.g., Form 6, Form 26, or any other form) have been accepted or rejected by administrative staff.
Thus, while the portal provides a broad status overview, it does not track procedural events or service-level actions in a time-bound or transparent manner. Applicants and their representatives are therefore often left to speculate on whether an application is progressing, delayed, or caught in administrative backlog. This lack of visibility contributes directly to procedural delays and opacity, even in cases where applicants have complied with all requirements and are awaiting action from the Patent Office. These limitations in procedural transparency are not merely theoretical, they have tangible effects. Numberous FERs filed as early as 2022-23 remain pending without closure. Even expedition examination requests, intended to be processed on priority under Rule 24C, continue to face unjustified delays. There are several examples of these situations. One example is an application filed in July 2024 under the expedited route, for which the FER has still not been issued. . Such delays suggest a systemic incapacity to meet the very timelines the expedited framework is intended to guarantee.
These examples reflect not just delay in substantive examination but also highlight the administrative opacity that persists across other stages of prosecution.
When a patent is checked for online, the portal does not even provide real time updates on several key administrative events, such as assignment recordals, hearing schedules, or post-hearing actions. As a result, the patent applicants are left uncertain about the current stage of their application. Repeated follow-up emails frequently go unanswered, and formal grievance redressal remains ineffective. The delays are not limited to examination or hearings. Administrative actions such as issuing certificates for annuity renewal payments often take more than a month, compelling applicants to track processing/compliance manually. Even basic acknowledgements like Filing Receipt (AFR) are not issued within a fixed timeline and may take weeks, months or even a year, depending on internal processing which is entirely upon the discretion of the patent office. These patterns reflect deeper systemic issues within the system: lack of accountability, unpredictable workflows, and the absence of a time-bound service standard within the patent office. Consequently, navigating the system becomes unduly burdensome, even for well-advised applicants.
Inconsistency and Ambiguity in Examination
While patent examination is inherently complex, it is further complicated by inconsistent examination practices. A recurring issue is the citation of prior art in FERs without pinpointing references. In other words,The FERs, in multiple cases, often cite the entire document without specifying which passages are considered relevant. This leaves the applicants guessing the specific objections, thereby increasing the time and effort required to respond properly and effectively.
A further concern is that the hearing notices often merely restate the original objections from the FER, without engaging or addressing the applicant's responses and amendments, or without clarifying the specific issues that remain unresolved. This perpetuates the initial ambiguity, especially when the original objections were themselves broadly framed or inadequately explained. More than often, no clear reasoning is provided to explain why the Controller found the previous submissions inadequate. In some instances, new objections are introduced by the patent office during the hearings without a prior notice to the applicants, thus depriving the applicants of the opportunity to prepare and respond, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Rule 138 of the Patents Rules, 2003, while intended to grant procedural flexibility, has been applied inconsistently across different patent offices.1 In some cases, despite the applicants providing cogent legal reasoning and complete documentation, their petitions under Rule 138 are neither clearly accepted nor rejected, instead, they are informally advised that their application may be refused, and that they must proceed "at their own risk". Such discretionary and unpredictable decision-making creates more uncertainty and imposes avoidable financial burden, particularly on individual and small-entity applicants.
In some cases, even precedents with similar claim structures are overlooked, resulting in further inconsistency. These issues underline the need for:
- Clear and pinpointed citation of prior art;
- Reasoned hearing notices that address applicant submissions; and
- Greater reliance on precedent to ensure consistency and predictability.
Operational Roadblocks
Beyond examination, the administrative functioning of the patent office can sometimes pose significant challenges for applicants. Although the Indian Patent Office has introduced the IPO Helpdesk Portal to support users in raising queries and addressing concerns, applicants often encounter delays in receiving meaningful responses; their queries are frequently met with generic or unhelpful responses, failing to resolve the specific issues at hand.
Concerns raised during formal meetings or correspondences with the administrative office are, in many cases, left unaddressed, leading to procedural ambiguity. In the absence of timely and effective redressal, applicants often feel compelled to proceed with the process despite lingering ambiguities. Many applicants are even unaware of whom to contact for specific queries or case updates..
Communication breakdown is pervasive, not only between applicants and administrative staff but within the system itself. Emails go unanswered, and regional office phone lines are rarely attended. There is a lack of coordinated internal communication and escalation channels within the department. Applicants often also report IT-related issues (such as failed uploads or system lags) without any clarity on resolution mechanisms or contact personnel.
During transitions between attorneys, the email ID of the previous attorney often remains linked to the application in the IPO system, and the new attorney's email ID is not updated i updated in the system on time. As a result, critical communications from the Patent Office continue to be sent to the former attorney, causing the new representative to miss important updates and responses..
In addition, there is a lack of transparency in reimbursements under government IP support schemes, where applicants are often paid a lump sum after months and months of delays, without any explanation as to which invoices the payment corresponds to.
The introduction of a robust, time-bound grievance redressal mechanism within the Patent Office, alongside a published, updated, and valid directory of contact persons for each regional office, would be a significant step towards improving administrative accountability and applicant's confidence.
Structural and Financial Hurdles
In addition to procedural delays and communication issues, the cost and structural unpredictability of the patent process disproportionately affect startups and individual inventors.
Although Rule 138 was designed to introduce procedural flexibility, the fee for filing condonation petitions can be significant for smaller applicants. Compounding this is the inconsistency in how different Controllers across various patent offices interpret and apply the said rule. In some offices, payment is insisted upon by the Controller even when the rule is arguably inapplicable and the applicant has provided cogent legal reasoning to support the stance. In other offices, the discretion is exercised inconsistently and without formal written orders or explanations, leaving applicants uncertain about the basis of the decision and unable to challenge it meaningfully. The absence of a uniform policy not only increases the compliance costs, but the legal risk for applicants as well. Inconsistent application of Rule 138 means that applicants often have to incur additional fees to file condonation petitions, even in cases where the delay may not technically apply, simply to safeguard their rights. Moreover, the lack of clarity in how Controllers will exercise discretion creates the risk that an application may be refused on procedural grounds, despite timely and reasoned submissions. This unpredictability undermines applicant confidence and adds unnecessary financial and legal burden to the process.Another concern is the unwarranted demand for National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) approval in cases where it is not legally required. The 2019 clarification from NBA makes clear that common or value-added biological materials like water, blood, or milk, do not equire clearance under Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. However, some examiners would continue to raise objections on such materials, causing unnecessary delays and additional expenses, particularly since obtaining NBA approval involves a significant fee.
A further compliance inconsistency arises with stamp duty. When a General Power of Attorney (GPOA) is filed with appropriate stamp duty and proper notarisation, it should logically suffice for related filings. Nevertheless, in certain patent offices such as Mumbai and Chennai, applicants are asked to submit fresh stamp duty for each related applications. This disparity adds to the procedural burden.
These challenges reflect a deeper systemic issue: the lack of standardised procedures and applicant-friendly practices. Unless addressed through procedural reforms, such as revisiting Rule 138 guidance, limiting improper NBA objections, and harmonising stamp duty treatment, the Indian patent system risks alienating the very innovators it seeks to support.
Post-Grant and Opposition Concerns
While much attention is placed on the preliminary stages of patent prosecution, the post- grant phase offers its own set of operational and procedural challenges. Opposition proceedings, while designed to serve as a safeguard against wrongful grants, have become a source of unpredictability and inefficiency.
One of the major issues is the absence of fixed timelines for post-grant opposition proceedings. Although the Opposition Board is expected to examine the matter and issue its recommendation report after an opposition is filed, there is statutory or regulatory deadline for completing or sharing such report. This structural gap results in prolonged uncertainty for both, the patentee as well as the opponent, thereby delaying the resolution and increasing the procedural burden on parties involved.
Even when the Opposition Board prepares its report, it is not always shared with the parties in a timely or consistent manner. This lack of mandatory disclosure deprives both the patentee and the opponent of visibility into developments that directly affect their rights. A process intended to promote transparency and accountability instead becomes opaque and procedurally imbalanced.
A related concern involves the filing of supplementary evidence. While parties are generally permitted to submit such evidence up until the hearing, this flexible approach creates procedural confusion. Late-stage filings are often not acknowledged or shared by the Board, despite applicants and opponents investing substantial effort in preparing them. This undermines procedural balance and fairness.
Broader administrative inconsistencies also affect post-grant matters. For example, annuity renewal certificates are not always issued within a reasonable timeframe, even when fees are paid on time. Applicants are forced to manually monitor the system for confirmation, increasing the risk of missed deadlines or errors, particularly in large portfolios or for foreign applicants who rely on local counsel for timely updates.
To restore procedural balance in post-grant opposition, several reforms are needed:
- Specifying timelines for the Opposition Board to issue and disclose its recommendation report;
- Establishing a cutoff date for submitting additional evidence, with compulsory disclosure to the opposite party; and
- Introducing automated or time-bound issuance of renewal certificates to eliminate ambiguity.
The post-grant stage is critical to the integrity of the patent system. Ensuring that it is transparent, fair, and efficient is essential to maintaining confidence in India's IP framework.
Documentation, Hearings, and Procedural Gaps
In addition to systemic delays and administrative issues, the patent process in India is riddled with gaps in documentation and procedural fairness which complicates the most straightforward steps in an application's lifecycle. One of the notable deficiency is the absence of a consolidated and clearly labelled "Granted Patent" document. Once a patent has been granted, applicants reasonably expect a single, official document that includes the final specification, approved claims, and all the associated drawings, capturing any amendments made during the process. However, currently the Indian Patent Office does not issue such a consolidated document. Instead applicants are forced to manually piece together all the documents from all the different prosecution stages to understand the scope of the granted patent. This raises the risk of confusion and misinterpretation, especially for third parties and potential licensees. Issuing an official and consolidated "Granted" PDF, as done in other major jurisdictions, would significantly enhance legal clarity.
There are also several procedural flaws evident in the hearing process. The applicants frequently report that hearing notices merely reiterate the objections raised by the Controller in the earlier FER, without addressing the responses and/or amendments submitted, or explaining why those submissions were found inadequate, thus failing to justify the need for repetition in the hearing notice. These practices undermine the purpose of the hearing and violate the principle of natural justice. Such irregularities are not isolated, they are widely reported by practitioners.
Communication infrastructure is another concern. There is no published contact list of Controllers or IT support personnel on the IPO website. In a system increasingly dependent on e-filing and portal-based communication, this lack of access to relevant personnel significantly hampers resolution of even minor technical issues.
Addressing these documentation and procedural flaws is essential to building a patent system that is not only legally robust but also user-friendly, transparent, and efficient.
Conclusion
The issues outlined above reflect the lived experiences of patent practitioners and applicants navigating the Indian patent system. From delayed FERs, unpredictable hearing procedures to opaque reimbursement practices and inconsistent administrative interpretations, the challenges are both systemic and procedural.
While these may appear to be administrative inefficiencies on the surface, together they create a system that is slow, uncertain, and resource-intensive, ultimately discouraging genuine innovation.
At this critical juncture, the Indian Patent Office must implement reforms aimed at:
- Introducing statutory or regulatory timelines for key actions;
- Ensuring transparency in examination and opposition processes;
- Streamlining post-grant procedures; and
- Establishing clear communication and grievance redressal mechanisms.
For India to emerge as a global innovation hub, the patent system must be both, responsive and reliable. Implementing these reforms will not only reduce applicant burden and procedural uncertainty but will also reinforce trust in the Indian IP ecosystem. This is essential to meet the growing demand for timely, efficient, and effective IP protection.
Moreover, in light of India's broader Digital India vision, a modern, transparent, and technology-enabled patent administration system is not merely desirable, it is imperative. A digitally robust and accountable IPO will play a foundational role in supporting innovation-driven economic growth.
Footnote
1 The Patent Rules, 2003; Rule 138
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.
