Chapter 4 : The Patent Act,1970

CHAPTER IV: PUBLICATION AND EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS

This chapter explains what happens to your application during the long “waiting period” (which can be several years) between filing and being granted.

Section 11A: Publication of applications

• (1) What it says: …no application for patent shall ordinarily be open to the public for such period as may be prescribed.
  • In plain English: Your patent application is kept secret for a set period after you file it. (The rules prescribe this as 18 months from the priority date).
  • Real-world example: You file a patent on Jan 1, 2024. Until July 1, 2025 (18 months later), nobody can search the Patent Office records and see your invention. This gives you a “head start” on your competitors.
• (2) What it says: The applicant may… request the Controller to publish his application at any time before the expiry of the period…
  • In plain English: If you want your application published sooner (e.g., to attract investors or to establish “prior art” against others), you can file a request for “early publication.”
  • Real-world example: You file on Jan 1, 2024. You can file a request to have it published on March 1, 2024. This is a strategic choice.
• (3) What it says: Every application for a patent shall, on the expiry of the period… be published, except in cases where…
  • In plain English: Your application will be automatically published in the official Patent Office journal as soon as the 18-month secrecy period ends. It will not be published if:
• (a) What it says: in which secrecy direction is imposed under section 35; or
  • In plain English: The invention is a state secret related to national defense (see Section 35).
• (b) What it says: has been abandoned under sub-section (1) of section 9; or
  • In plain English: You filed a provisional but failed to file your complete specification within 12 months.
• (c) What it says: has been withdrawn three months prior to the period…
  • In plain English: You officially “withdrew” your application at least 3 months before the 18-month publication date.
  • Real-world example: You file on Jan 1, 2024. The publication date is July 1, 2025. If you change your mind and decide to keep the invention a “trade secret,” you must withdraw the application before April 1, 2025, to prevent it from becoming public.
• (4) What it says: In case a secrecy direction has been given… it shall be published after… the secrecy direction has ceased to operate, whichever is later.
  • In plain English: If your invention was a state secret but is later declassified, it will be published either 18 months from filing or on the declassification date, whichever is later.
• (5) What it says: The publication… shall include the particulars of… the applicant… and an abstract.
  • In plain English: The publication isn’t the entire document. It’s a notice in the journal with the application number, your name, the title, and the short summary (abstract) you wrote.
• (6) What it says: Upon publication… (a) the depository institution shall make the biological material… available to the public; (b) the patent office may… make the specification… available to the public.
  • In plain English: As soon as your application is published, two things happen:
    1. If you deposited a micro-organism (like a yeast strain), anyone can now get a sample from the depository bank.
    2. Your entire complete specification (the full document with all claims and drawings) becomes public and can be downloaded and read by anyone.
• (7) What it says: On and from the date of publication… and until the date of grant… the applicant shall have the like privileges and rights as if a patent for the invention had been granted…
  • In plain English: This is a very important concept called “Provisional Rights.” In the period after publication but before your patent is granted (the “patent pending” period), the law treats you as if you already have a patent.
• Proviso 1: Provided that the applicant shall not be entitled to institute any proceedings for infringement until the patent has been granted:
  • In plain English: The “catch.” You have the rights, but you cannot sue anyone for infringement… yet.
  • Real-world example: Your application is published on July 1, 2025. You see a competitor, “CopyCorp,” start selling your exact invention on Aug 1, 2025. You cannot sue them on this date. You must wait.
• Proviso 1 (Continued): …
  • Real-world example (Part 2): Your patent is finally granted on Oct 1, 2027. Now you can sue “CopyCorp.” And because of your “provisional rights,” you can claim damages for all the infringement they did all the way back to Aug 1, 2025 (the date they started after your publication).
• Proviso 2 & 3: These relate to old, specific types of applications (pharmaceuticals filed between 1995-2005) and outline “reasonable royalty” as the compensation instead of a full infringement suit. They are less relevant for new applications today.

Section 11B: Request for examination

This is a critical, deadline-driven step. Filing your application does not mean it will be examined.

• (1) What it says: No application for a patent shall be examined unless the applicant or any other interested person makes a request in the prescribed manner… within the prescribed period.
  • In plain English: Your application will sit in a pile forever unless you (or someone else) formally file a request (on “Form 18”) and pay a separate fee to ask for an examination. You must do this within a deadline (currently 48 months from the priority date).
  • Real-world example: You file your patent on Jan 1, 2024. Your application is published on July 1, 2025. It will not be assigned to an examiner until you file Form 18 and pay the examination fee. If you forget to do this by Jan 1, 2028 (48 months), your application dies.
• (3) What it says: In case of an application… filed under sub-section (2) of section 5… a request… shall be made… by the applicant or any other interested person.
  • In plain English: This is just a special rule for the old (pre-2005) pharmaceutical applications, reinforcing that they also must file a request to be examined.
• (4) What it says: In case the applicant or any other interested person does not make a request for examination… the application shall be treated as withdrawn by the applicant.
  • In plain English: If you miss the deadline (e.g., 48 months) to request an examination, your application is “treated as withdrawn.” It is dead, and you cannot revive it.
• Proviso (i): You can also voluntarily withdraw your application at any time before the grant.
• Proviso (ii): If your application was under a “secrecy direction” (for national defense), your 48-month clock starts from the day the secrecy order is revoked.

Section 12: Examination of application

This section describes what happens after you request an examination.

• (1) What it says: When a request for examination has been made… the application and specification… shall be referred… by the Controller to an examiner…
  • In plain English: Once you file your request (Form 18) and pay the fee, the Controller (the boss) will finally pick up your file and assign it to a “Patent Examiner,” who is a technical expert in your field. The Examiner is instructed to write a report on:
• (a) What it says: whether the application and the specification… are in accordance with… this Act…
  • In plain English: Did you use the right forms? Is the title clear? Did you file everything correctly?
• (b) What it says: whether there is any lawful ground of objection to the grant of the patent…
  • In plain English: Does the invention fall into one of the “not patentable” categories (e.g., is it an abstract idea under Sec 3, or an atomic energy invention under Sec 4)?
• (c) What it says: the result of investigations made under section 13; and
  • In plain English: What did the “prior art” search find? (See Sec 13, next). Is the invention actually new?
• (d) What it says: any other matter which may be prescribed.
  • In plain English: A catch-all for any other rules or objections.
• (2) What it says: The examiner… shall ordinarily make the report to the Controller within such period as may be prescribed.
  • In plain English: The Examiner has a deadline (set by the rules, typically a few months) to conduct the search, review the application, and send their secret internal report to the Controller.

Section 13: Search for anticipation by previous publication and by prior claim

This is the “prior art search” — the core of the examination. The Examiner’s main job is to try to find your invention already described somewhere.

• (1) What it says: The examiner… shall make investigation for the purpose of ascertaining whether the invention…
• (a) What it says: has been anticipated by publication… in any specification filed in… India… on or after the 1st day of January, 1912;
  • In plain English: The Examiner will first search all old Indian patent specifications (going all the way back to 1912) to see if your invention has been described before.
• (b) What it says: is claimed in any claim of any other complete specification published on or after the date of filing… being a specification… dated before or claiming the priority date earlier than that date.
  • In plain English: This is a complex but important check. The Examiner must search for other patent applications that were filed before yours (or have an earlier priority date) but were published after yours. If that other application claims your invention, you may not be able to get your patent.
  • Real-world example:
    • Jan 1: You file for “Invention X.”
    • Feb 1: “Competitor A” files for “Invention X.”
    • July 1: Your application is published.
    • Aug 1: Competitor A’s application is published.
    • The Examiner sees Competitor A’s application. Even though it was published after yours, it was filed before yours. Therefore, Competitor A has the better claim, and your application will be objected to.
• (2) What it says: The examiner shall… make such investigation… for… ascertaining whether the invention… has been anticipated by publication in India or elsewhere in any document…
  • In plain English: This is the global “prior art” search. The Examiner is not limited to Indian patents. They will search all public documents in the world (US patents, Japanese patents, scientific journals, websites, university papers, etc.) to see if your invention was described anywhere before your priority date.
  • Real-world example: The Examiner finds a university paper from Germany, published in 1995, that describes your “new” invention. Your patent application will be rejected because it is “anticipated” (not new).
• (3) What it says: Where a complete specification is amended… the amended specification shall be examined and investigated in like manner…
  • In plain English: If you try to fix your application by “amending” your claims, the Examiner has to re-do the search based on your new claims.
  • Real-world example: Your first claim for “a vehicle” is rejected. You amend it to “a vehicle with two wheels.” The Examiner must now go back and search to see if a “two-wheeled vehicle” is new.
• (4) What it says: The examination and investigations… shall not be deemed… to warrant the validity of any patent…
  • In plain English: This is a critical legal disclaimer for the Government. It means: “Just because we did a search and granted you a patent, it doesn’t mean we guarantee it’s valid.”
  • Real-world example: You get your patent. In a later court case, a competitor finds that 1995 German university paper that the Examiner missed. A court can still revoke your patent based on this new evidence. The Patent Office is not liable for missing it.

Section 14: Consideration of the report of examiner by Controller

This section describes what the Controller does with the Examiner’s internal report.

• (1) What it says: Where… the report of the examiner… is adverse… or requires any amendment… the Controller… shall communicate… the gist of the objections to the applicant…
  • In plain English: If the Examiner’s report finds any problems (the invention isn’t new, the forms are wrong, the claims are vague, etc.), the Controller (the boss) can’t just refuse it. The Controller must send a copy of all the objections to you (the applicant).
  • Real-world example: This official communication is called the First Examination Report (FER) or “First Statement of Objections.” It’s a letter that lists, “Objection 1: Your invention is not new because of [US Patent X]. Objection 2: Your claims are unclear…”
• (2) What it says: …and shall, if so required by the applicant… give him an opportunity of being heard.
  • In plain English: After you receive the FER, you have the right to respond in writing and to request a “hearing.” A hearing is a formal meeting (now usually a video call) where you or your patent agent can verbally argue your case directly with the Controller.
  • Real-world example: You get an FER. You submit a 10-page written response. The Controller is still not convinced. You then “request a hearing” to personally explain why the Examiner’s interpretation of [US Patent X] is wrong.

Section 15: Power of Controller to refuse or require amended applications, etc., in certain case

This section gives the Controller the ultimate power to say “no.”

• (1) What it says: Where the Controller is satisfied that the application or any specification… does not comply with the requirements of this Act… the Controller may refuse the application or may require the application… to be amended…
  • In plain English: After the whole back-and-forth process (FER, your reply, your hearing), if the Controller is still convinced your application is invalid (e.g., it’s not new, or it’s just a business method), they can do one of two things:
    1. Refuse: Officially reject your application.
    2. Require Amendment: Give you one last chance, saying, “I will refuse this unless you amend Claim 1 to exclude [the thing that’s not new].” If you fail to make that amendment, then he will refuse it.
  • Real-world example: After a hearing, the Controller says, “Your broad claim for ‘a search engine’ is refused. However, if you amend your claim to be ‘a search engine that uses your specific new algorithm,’ I will allow it.” This is a “require amendment” order.

Section 16: Power of Controller to make orders respecting division of application

This section deals with “divisional applications,” which is the process of splitting one application into two or more “child” applications.

• (1) What it says: A person who has made an application… may, at any time before the grant… if he so desires, or with a view to remedy the objection… on the ground that the claims… relate to more than one invention, file a further application…
  • In plain English: You can “divide” your patent application into a new, separate application in two situations:
    1. Voluntarily: You choose to split it.
    2. Forced: The Controller objects, saying your application contains more than one invention (which violates the “one invention per application” rule in Section 7).
  • Real-world example (Forced): You file one application claiming “1. A new solar panel” and “2. A new battery to store its power.” The Examiner issues an objection, stating “This application contains two distinct inventions.” To fix this, you keep the solar panel claims in the original (“parent”) application and file a new “divisional application” (a “child” application) for the battery claims.
• (2) What it says: The further application… shall be accompanied by a complete specification, but such complete specification shall not include any matter not in substance disclosed in the complete specification filed in… the first… application.
  • In plain English: Your new “child” application must have its own complete specification, but you cannot add any new information (“new matter”) that wasn’t already in your original “parent” application.
  • Real-world example: In the case above, your “child” application for the battery can only contain the information about the battery that was already in your original filing. You can’t use this as a chance to add a new feature to the battery that you just invented last week.
• (3) What it says: The Controller may require such amendment… to ensure that neither of the… specifications includes a claim for any matter claimed in the other.
  • In plain English: The Controller will make you amend the claims of both the “parent” and “child” applications to make sure they don’t overlap. The parent application should only claim the first invention, and the child application should only claim the second invention.
  • Real-world example: The Controller will make you delete the “battery” claims from your “parent” (solar panel) application, and delete the “solar panel” claims from your “child” (battery) application.
• Explanation: …the further application… shall be deemed to have been filed on the date on which the first mentioned application had been filed…
  • In plain English: This is the most important part. The new “child” application (for the battery) is legally treated as if it was filed on the exact same day as your original “parent” application.
  • Real-world example: If your “parent” application was filed on Jan 1, 2024, and you file the “child” (divisional) application on Dec 1, 2025, the “child” application’s official Priority Date is still Jan 1, 2024. This is a huge advantage and protects you from any prior art published during that gap.

Section 17: Power of Controller to make orders respecting dating of application

This section covers situations where your application’s official filing date can be moved to a later date (post-dating). This is generally not a good thing, as it makes your invention “younger” and more vulnerable to prior art.

• (1) What it says: …the Controller may, at the request of the applicant… direct that the application shall be post-dated to such date as may be specified in the request…
  • In plain English: You (the applicant) can ask the Controller to move your filing date to a later one.
• Proviso: …no application shall be post-dated… to a date later than six months from the date on which it was actually made…
  • In plain English: You can only post-date your application by a maximum of 6 months.
  • Real-world example: You file a provisional on Jan 1. You realize it’s a weak description. You significantly improve it and are ready to file a much better description on May 1 (within 6 months). You can request to have your Jan 1 application “post-dated” to May 1. You lose the Jan 1 priority, but your application is now stronger. This is a very rare and risky strategy.
• (2) What it says: …Where an application or specification… is required to be amended under section 15… the application or specification… shall, if the Controller so directs, be deemed to have been made on the date on which the requirement is complied with…
  • In plain English: This is a forced post-dating. If the Controller orders you to amend your application (under Section 15) and your amendment adds new matter (which isn’t allowed), the Controller can say: “Your application is now considered filed on the date you submitted this new amendment.”
  • Real-world example: Your application, filed on Jan 1, is for “a chair.” The Controller objects. You reply on Oct 1 with an amendment for “a chair with a new type of spring.” The Controller can rule that the spring is “new matter” and force your application’s filing date to be moved from Jan 1 to Oct 1, which is very dangerous.

Section 18: Powers of Controller in cases of anticipation

This section explains what the Controller can do after the Section 13 search finds that your invention is not new (“anticipated”).

• (1) What it says: Where it appears… that the invention… has been anticipated [by a published document]… he may refuse the application unless the applicant—
  • In plain English: If the Examiner finds a document (a prior art patent or journal article) that published your invention before your priority date, the Controller will refuse your application. Your only way out is to:
• (a) What it says: shows… that the priority date of his claim is not later than the date on which the relevant document was published; or
  • In plain English: Prove that your priority date is earlier than the publication date of that document.
  • Real-world example: The Examiner cites a US patent published on Feb 1, 2024. You can show that your Indian provisional was filed on Jan 1, 2024. Therefore, you are earlier, and the US patent is not valid prior art against you.
• (b) What it says: amends his complete specification to the satisfaction of the Controller.
  • In plain English: Amend your claims to “get around” the prior art.
  • Real-world example: The prior art shows “a chair.” You amend your claim to “a chair with a circular seat.” If the prior art only showed a square seat, you have now “amended” your claim to be different, and you might be able to get it passed.
• (2) What it says: If it appears… that the invention is claimed in a claim of any other complete specification… [filed before yours but published after]… he may… direct that a reference to that other specification shall be inserted…
  • In plain English: This handles the other type of anticipation (from Section 13(1)(b)). If the Examiner finds an application that was filed before yours (but not yet published at the time), and it claims the same invention, the Controller can’t refuse you outright. Instead, he can force you to add a note to your patent that says: “Note: The public should also see Patent No. XYZ, which may be related to this invention.”
  • In plain English (Continued): You can avoid this if you:
• (a) What it says: …show… that the priority date of his claim is not later than the priority date of the claim of the said other specification; or
  • In plain English: Prove your priority date is actually earlier than the other guy’s.
• (b) What it says: …the complete specification is amended to the satisfaction of the Controller.
  • In plain English: Amend your claims so they no longer conflict with what the other guy claimed.
• (3) What it says: This is a highly technical sub-section. It essentially says that the rule from sub-section (2) also applies in a more specific scenario: where another patent was published after your priority date but was filed before your priority date, and it also claims your invention.
  • In plain English: It’s another “earlier filer wins” rule, and the result is the same: the Controller can force you to add a reference to the other patent unless you can prove an earlier date or amend your claims.

Section 19: Powers of Controller in case of potential infringement

This section deals with a specific problem: what if your invention, even if it’s new, cannot be used without infringing someone else’s older, broader patent?

• (1) What it says: If… it appears to the Controller that an invention… cannot be performed without substantial risk of infringement of a claim of any other patent, he may direct that a reference to that other patent shall be inserted…
  • In plain English: The Controller believes your invention (Invention B) is an improvement on an existing patent (Invention A), and you can’t make B without also using A. To warn the public, the Controller can force you to add a note to your patent: “Note: To use this invention, you may also need a license for Patent No. ABC.”
  • Real-world example:
    • Patent A (Active): “A new type of car engine.”
    • Your Application (B): “A new fuel injector for the car engine of Patent A.”
    • Your fuel injector is new, but it only works with that specific engine. The Controller will make you add a reference to Patent A.
  • In plain English (Continued): You can avoid this if you:
• (a) What it says: …show… that there are reasonable grounds for contesting the validity of the said claim of the other patent; or
  • In plainEnglish: Argue that “Patent A is invalid, and here’s the proof. I shouldn’t have to reference an invalid patent.”
• (b) What it says: …the complete specification is amended to the satisfaction of the Controller.
  • In plain English: Amend your claims so your invention is not dependent on Patent A. (e.g., “A new fuel injector for any general engine,” not just the one from Patent A).
• (2) What it says: Where… a reference to another patent has been inserted… the Controller may, on the application of the applicant, delete the reference…
  • In plain English: You can ask the Controller to remove that warning note if you can prove the other patent is no longer a problem. This can happen if:
• (a) What it says: that other patent is revoked or otherwise ceases to be in force; or
  • In plain English: Patent A (the engine) has expired, or it was revoked in a court case.
• (b) What it says: the specification of that other patent is amended by the deletion of the relevant claim; or
  • In plain English: The owner of Patent A amended their claims, and the broad “engine” claim you were infringing has been deleted.
• (c) What it says: it is found, in proceedings… that the relevant claim… is invalid or is not infringed by any working of the applicant’s invention.
  • In plain English: A court has officially ruled that Patent A is invalid or that your fuel injector (Invention B) does not infringe Patent A.

Section 20: Powers of Controller to make orders regarding substitution of applicants, etc.

This section covers how to change the names of the applicants on an application before it has been granted.

• (1) What it says: If the Controller is satisfied, on a claim made… before a patent has been granted, that by virtue of any assignment or agreement in writing… or by operation of law, the claimant would… be entitled… to the patent… the Controller may… direct that the application shall proceed in the name of the claimant…
  • In plainEnglish: If you buy an invention (or inherit it) from an inventor after they’ve filed the application but before it’s granted, you can file a request with the Controller to have your name put on the application as the new applicant/owner.
  • Real-world example:
    1. Jan 1: Inventor ‘A’ files a patent application.
    2. Mar 1: Company ‘B’ buys the invention from ‘A’ and gets a signed “Deed of Assignment.”
    3. Company ‘B’ can submit this deed to the Controller and request that the application be “substituted” into its name. The application will now proceed as “Company B (Applicant).”
• (2) What it says: No such direction… shall be given by virtue of any assignment… made by one of two or more joint applicants… except with the consent of the other joint applicant or applicants.
  • In plain English: If two people, Raj and Priya, are joint applicants, Raj cannot sell his share of the application to a third party without Priya’s written consent.
  • Real-world example: Raj (joint applicant) tries to sell his 50% share to a big company. The Controller will not approve the substitution unless Raj also provides a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) signed by Priya.
• (3) What it says: No such direction… shall be given by virtue of any assignment… of the benefit of an invention unless…
  • In plain English: The Controller won’t approve a substitution based on an assignment unless you provide clear proof that the assignment document is for this specific invention. You can prove this if:
• (a) What it says: the invention is identified therein by reference to the number of the application…; or
  • In plain English: The assignment document clearly states: “I hereby assign my rights in Application No. 123/DEL/2024.”
• (b) What it says: there is produced… an acknowledgement by the person [who]… made [the assignment]…; or
  • In plain English: You provide a new statement from the inventor (assignor) confirming that the sale was for this specific application.
• (c) What it says: the rights of the claimant… have been finally established by… a court; or
  • In plain English: You have a court order that proves you are the rightful owner.
• (d) What it says: the Controller gives directions for enabling the application to proceed…
  • In plain English: The Controller uses his discretion to allow the substitution.
• (4) What it says: Where one of two or more joint applicants for a patent dies… the Controller may… with the consent of the legal representative of the deceased, direct that the application shall proceed in the name of the survivor or survivors alone.
  • In plain English: If Raj and Priya are joint applicants and Priya dies, Raj can continue the application. However, he must get the consent of Priya’s “legal representative” (e.g., the executor of her will) first.
  • Real-world example: Raj submits Priya’s death certificate and a consent letter from her legal representative. The Controller then removes Priya’s name, and the application proceeds in Raj’s name alone (though Priya’s estate may still have a financial interest).
• (5) What it says: If any dispute arises between joint applicants… the Controller may… give such directions as he thinks fit for enabling the application to proceed…
  • In plain English: If joint applicants (Raj and Priya) start fighting (e.g., Priya wants to abandon the application but Raj wants to continue), one of them can ask the Controller to act as a referee.
  • Real-world example: Raj files a request. The Controller holds a hearing, listens to both Raj and Priya, and can then issue an order, such as: “Raj is permitted to proceed with the application on his own, but Priya’s name will remain as a joint patentee if it is granted.” This prevents a dispute from killing the entire application.

Section 21: Time for putting application in order for grant

This section sets the final, non-negotiable deadline for you to fix all objections and get your application ready for a patent.

• (1) What it says: An application… shall be deemed to have been abandoned unless… the applicant has complied with all the requirements imposed on him… from the date on which the first statement of objections… is forwarded to the applicant…
  • In plain English: Once the Patent Office sends you your first list of objections (the First Examination Report, or FER), a “death clock” starts. You must resolve all objections (not just the first ones) within a specific period from that first communication. (The current rules set this at 6 months, which can be extended by 3 months). If you fail to get your application “in order for grant” by this final deadline, your application is “deemed to have been abandoned.”
  • Real-world example:
    1. The Controller sends you an FER on Jan 1, 2024. Your 6-month deadline is July 1, 2024.
    2. You reply on June 1, 2024.
    3. The Controller isn’t satisfied and sends a second set of objections on Aug 1, 2024.
    4. This does NOT restart the clock. Your final deadline is still based on the first letter. You must request an extension (to Oct 1, 2024) and resolve all the new objections before that final date, or your application is dead.
• Explanation: …where the application… or any document… has been returned to the applicant by the Controller… the applicant shall not be deemed to have complied… unless and until he has re-filed it…
  • In plain English: If the Controller returns a document to you (e.g., “These drawings are in the wrong format, re-submit them”), your compliance clock stops and only restarts when you re-file the corrected document. You can’t just ignore the return notice and let the clock run out.
• (2) What it says: If at the expiration of the period… (a) an appeal to the High Court is pending… the time… shall… be extended until such date as the High Court may determine.
  • In plain English: If you are fighting with the Controller over an objection and have an active appeal with the High Court when the deadline expires, the deadline is “paused” or “extended” until the Court gives its final order.
  • Real-world example: The Controller refuses your application. You appeal to the High Court. While the appeal is happening, your final deadline to comply (from Section 21(1)) passes. Your application is not abandoned. It is frozen, awaiting the court’s decision.
• (3) What it says: If the time within which the appeal… may be instituted has not expired, the Controller may extend the period…
  • In plain English: This gives you a “grace period.” If the Controller refuses your application just before your final deadline, he can extend the deadline to give you a fair chance to file an appeal with the High Court.
  • Real-world example: Your final deadline is July 1. The Controller refuses your application on June 28. You can’t possibly file a High Court appeal in 2 days. The Controller can extend the deadline (e.g., to Oct 1) to give you the proper time to prepare and file your appeal.

Sections 22, 23, and 24: (Omitted)

• What it says: [Omitted by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005]
• In plain English: These three sections used to be very important. They described an old system where a patent was “Accepted,” then “Advertised for Opposition,” and then, if no one opposed, it was “Granted.”
• Why were they removed? The 2005 amendment created a new, more efficient system.
  • The old “Advertisement of Acceptance” was replaced by the automatic “Publication” at 18 months (Section 11A).
  • The old “Opposition” was replaced by the two-part system we see in Section 25.

CHAPTER IVA (Sections 24A to 24F): Exclusive Marketing Rights (Omitted)

• What it says: [Omitted by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005]
• In plain English: This entire chapter is gone. It was a temporary “bridge” solution created to comply with international TRIPS agreement rules.

Why was it removed? From 1995 to 2005, India did not grant product patents for medicines. This chapter allowed pharma companies to get “Exclusive Marketing Rights” (EMRs) for their new drugs as a temporary substitute. In 2005, India re-introduced product patents for all inventions (including medicines). Since the full patent was now available, this temporary EMR system was no longer needed and was repealed.