The Shifting Landscape of Patent Scrutiny
For centuries, the patent examination process has operated as a largely internal exercise, insulated from the public eye and reliant on examiners to assess novelty, inventive step, and utility within the constraints of limited resources and time. But with an explosion in the volume and complexity of patent filings, particularly in fast-evolving technological fields, that model is showing its cracks.
To address this, a quiet but meaningful shift has taken hold across patent offices around the world: inviting the public to participate in the patent examination process. Through structured crowdsourcing platforms, third-party submissions, and pre-grant opposition mechanisms, individuals, industry stakeholders, and subject-matter experts are increasingly being called upon to bring forward relevant prior art and challenge weak claims before they become enforceable rights.
Legal Foundations for Third-Party Involvement in Patent Examination
Public participation in patent examination operates within legal contours that vary by jurisdiction but share a common purpose: to strengthen patent quality by allowing outsiders to contribute information the examiner might otherwise miss.
In India, Section 25 of the Patents Act, 1970 permits pre-grant opposition by "any person," enabling them to raise objections on grounds such as lack of novelty, obviousness, or non-patentable subject matter. The process allows detailed submissions, including prior publications or use, public disclosures, or traditional knowledge, many of which may never surface during routine examination.
Crowdsourcing and Public Scrutiny in the Indian Patent Framework
India does not yet operate a formal digital crowdsourcing platform akin to Peer-to-Patent, but its patent law embeds strong public participation tools—particularly through pre-grant and post-grant opposition mechanisms under Sections 25(1) and 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970. These provisions serve as open invitations to scientists, public interest groups, industry players, and even anonymous whistleblowers to participate directly in challenging questionable patent claims.
Section 25(1) allows any person to file a pre-grant opposition on eleven substantive grounds, ranging from anticipation by prior publication or use to wrongful obtainment, lack of disclosure of source or geographical origin, and absence of patentable subject matter. Crucially, the opposition may be filed before the grant, and the Controller is required to consider these objections, even if raised by non-interested or unrelated parties.
Although not a digital crowdsourcing platform in the strict sense, this structure is inherently democratic. It allows for wide-scale public scrutiny of applications, particularly useful in fields like pharmaceuticals, where incremental innovations or minor modifications often attempt to skirt around Section 3(d)'s bar on evergreening.
For example, many patent oppositions in India—especially by public health advocates and generic drug manufacturers—have successfully relied on publicly accessible prior art and expert affidavits to prevent grant of patents on weak or repetitive inventions. That's crowdsourcing in substance, if not in name.
How Public Participation Has Shaped Patent Outcomes in India
Real-World Impact
Civil society organisations, health activists, and domestic drug manufacturers have actively filed pre-grant oppositions, often preventing the grant of monopolies on drugs that fail to meet India's higher threshold of patentability.
One of the most widely cited cases is the opposition to Novartis's patent application for the cancer drug Imatinib Mesylate. While the eventual rejection by the Supreme Court in Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013) was framed within the context of Section 3(d), the early stages involved active public opposition with technical submissions highlighting existing disclosures and lack of enhanced therapeutic efficacy.
Similarly, oppositions filed against patent applications for HIV, hepatitis C, and diabetes drugs have succeeded by drawing on prior art published in obscure journals, older patents, or even doctoral theses available online. In many cases, this information was surfaced not by patent examiners, but by researchers and advocacy groups outside the system. Their participation ensured that the Indian public was not burdened with unjustified monopolies on essential medicines.
Challenges and Barriers to Effective Public Participation in India
While Indian patent law permits robust public involvement, the actual execution faces significant hurdles. First, access to real-time information about pending patent applications remains patchy. The Indian Patent Advanced Search System (InPASS) has improved transparency, but gaps remain in timely publication, interface usability, and access to full-text documents or related international filings.
Second, the process of filing a pre-grant opposition, though open to "any person," still demands technical precision and legal understanding. A poorly framed opposition—without well-cited prior art, technical reasoning, or legal grounding—can be dismissed summarily. For non-lawyers or resource-constrained civil society groups, this poses a serious barrier.
There's also the matter of examiner workload. Even with an opposition on file, an overburdened examiner may not meaningfully engage with third-party submissions unless they are presented clearly and backed by credible sources. This places an unequal burden on outsiders to do the system's due diligence.
And finally, India does not yet provide a formal framework for anonymous or crowd-based prior art submissions outside of the structured opposition process. Individuals who spot problematic claims but do not wish to enter formal proceedings have limited means to intervene—unlike jurisdictions where patent offices accept informal prior art contributions without requiring full legal oppositions.
Conclusion
The Indian legal framework already recognises that the stakes in granting a patent go beyond private reward. Each monopoly affects markets, prices, competition, and public access. It follows naturally that the public should have a role in filtering what enters the system.
But to be truly effective, that participation must be practical, not just theoretical. India has the legal tools. What's needed now is institutional openness to building technical bridges—tools that make it easier for skilled outsiders to contribute, without being bogged down by procedural formalism or legalistic filters.
Patent examiners do vital work. But they cannot be expected to know everything. No single file examiner, no matter how capable, can match the collective intelligence of a connected, technically literate public. It's time we designed the system to reflect that reality.
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.
