July 2012: Controller’s decisions at the IPO

July was yet another sizzling month (third in a row) at the Controller’s offices!  Out of 138 decisions listed, 56 were granted, 23 refused and no file uploaded for the remainder.  

One issue that I must highlight is that the Chennai patent office uploads the decisions in a haphazard manner.  There is no problem with the decision as such, but it may create problem in data retrieval at a later stage.  The decisions are first printed, then signed, then scanned, and uploaded.  While scanning, the file is not placed properly on the scanner.  This will result in problems later when all records are digitized. See the RFP for providing patent database & interface issued by the Controller General here.  Readers may ask the reason for highlighting this issue:  The reason is that if the data is not uniform and requires re-entry, it entails a higher cost.  

1468/MUM/2005 TUKARAM MUGUTRAO KARNE No file uploaded Pankaj Borkar
1866/MUMNP/2007 A.Y.Y.T. TECHNOLOGICAL LTD. No file uploaded N. Ramchander
1027/DELNP/2004 PRO-FIT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Refused 2(1)(j) Mr. Naveen Mathur
1798/MUMNP/2007 OMYA DEVELOPMENT AG No file uploaded N. Ramchander
1468/MUM/2005 TUKARAM MUGUTRAO KARNE No file uploaded Pankaj Borkar
1092/MUM/2009 ARIHANT APPLIANCES  No file uploaded N. Ramchander
2051/DELNP/2006 E.I. DU PONT  Granted 2(1)(j) Dr.Rajesh Dixit
5076/CHENP/2007 BASF AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT No file uploaded Priyadharshini Rajanbabu
5236/DELNP/2005 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY 43(1) Shah Alam
3926/DELNP/2006 LUTRON ELECTRONICS CO., INC. Granted 2(1)(j) Mr. Naveen Mathur
2028/KOLNP/2006 SINGLE BUOY MOORINGS , INC. Granted Nirmalya Sinha
522/MUMNP/2009 UNIVERSITY OF TARTU Granted Dr. Dinesh P. Patil
229/MUMNP/2009 NOVAGEN HOLDING CORPORATION Granted Dr. Dinesh P. Patil
1966/MUMNP/2007 AFFIMED THERAPEUTICS AG Granted Dr. Dinesh P. Patil
383/CHENP/2008 EISAI R&D MANAGEMENT CO., LTD. Refused Priyadharshini Rajanbabu
651/KOL/2006 REICHLE & DE-MASSARI AG No file uploaded Parijat Sourav
2032/DELNP/2007 LG CHEM. LTD. Granted Dr.Rajesh Dixit
1947/MUMNP/2007 LG ELECTRONICS INC. Granted Pankaj Borkar
2053/MUM/2007 ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Refused N. Ramchander
3727/CHENP/2006 KOHLER CO. Refused V Saravanan
2052/CHENP/2007 SCHWEITZER-MAUDUIT Granted 2(1)(ja) Parveen Kausar Baig
2731/DELNP/2004 MEIJI SEIKA PHARMA CO, LTD. No file uploaded N.R.Meena
6391/DELNP/2007 SAVVIPHARM INC. No file uploaded N.R.Meena
386/DELNP/2006 THERAPEUTIC HUMAN POLYCLONALS No file uploaded Monika Yadav
4507/DELNP/2005 PIONEER HI-BRED INT. No file uploaded Monika Yadav
1654/MUMNP/2008 HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED Granted Dr. Amarendra Samal
1693/MUM/2006 UNITED PHOSPHORUS LIMITED Granted Dr. Amarendra Samal
7499/DELNP/2006 SONY CORPORATION No file uploaded 43(1) Shah Alam
877/MUM/2008 UNITED PHOSPHORUS LIMITED Granted Dr. Amarendra Samal
663/DELNP/2004 MILLIKEN & COMPANY No file uploaded N.R.Meena
121/MUM/2009 UNITED PHOSPHORUS LIMITED Granted Dr. Amarendra Samal
2152/MUMNP/2008 WAKO PURE CHEMICAL Granted Dr. Dinesh P. Patil
573/MUMNP/2006 Academia Sinica Granted Dr. Dinesh P. Patil
2225/DELNP/2006 E.I. DU PONT  Granted Dr.Rajesh Dixit
1201/DEL/1999 ARYSTA LIFESCIENCE Granted 3(d) S.K.Roy
1143/MUMNP/2007 ID BIOMEDICAL CORPORATION Refused Dr. Dinesh P. Patil
2741/MUMNP/2008 THE CONCENTRATE MFG. CO. IRELAND Granted Dr. Dinesh P. Patil
1617/MUM/2007 RAPTAKOS BRETT & CO. LTD. No file uploaded N. Ramchander
1382/DELNP/2007 AOKI SCIENCE INSTITUTE CO., LTD., Granted Dr.Rajesh Dixit
541/MUM/2008 RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Granted N. Ramchander
5203/CHENP/2007 LOTTE CO LTD Refused Priyadharshini Rajanbabu
3321/CHENP/2006 RECKITT BENCKISER (UK) LIMITED Refused Priyadharshini Rajanbabu
3096/DELNP/2007 BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED Refused 3(d) Dr.Rajesh Dixit
2796/DEL/2006 INDIAN INST. OF CARPET TECH Granted Vinod Kumar
1925/DELNP/2006 NOVO NORDISK A/S Refused Monika Yadav
200/MUM/2007 TATA MOTORS LIMITED Granted Vikash Sharma
2943/DELNP/2004 MERIAL LIMITED No file uploaded Monika Yadav
2083/MUMNP/2007 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED Granted Pinkesh Jain
44/MUMNP/2008 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED Granted Pinkesh Jain
2240/DELNP/2007 AFFITECH RESEARCH AS No file uploaded Monika Yadav
2096/MUMNP/2007 TAIGEN BIOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. Granted N. Ramchander
2062/MUMNP/2007 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED Granted Pinkesh Jain
4166/DELNP/2007 LONZA AG No file uploaded Monika Yadav
2936/DELNP/2006 MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC No file uploaded Monika Yadav
1939/MUM/2007 TATA MOTORS LIMITED Granted Pankaj Borkar
654/MUMNP/2006 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED Granted Pinkesh Jain
7721/DELNP/2007 PFIZER INC No file uploaded Monika Yadav
4405/CHENP/2007 RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED No file uploaded C Naveen Andrew
837/CHENP/2006 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS No file uploaded S Thangapandian
1482/CHENP/2006 GOOGLE, INC. No file uploaded S Thangapandian
262/CHE/2008 LAURUS LABS PVT LTD Patent Granted 25(1) T V Madhusudhan
459/MUMNP/2009 NANOMIZER INC Granted N. Ramchander
1127/MUM/2007 DILIP SAHEBRAO INGOLE Granted Pankaj Borkar
4015/CHENP/2007 E2INTERACTIVE INC.,  Refused 3(k) C Naveen Andrew
1260/DELNP/2007 RAYTHEON COMPANY Granted Mr. Naveen Mathur
2789/DEL/2006 HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD Granted Vinod Kumar
1780/DEL/2004 DIEBOLD INCORPORATED Granted No file Sh.S.N.Sav
4637/DELNP/2005 NIHON NOHYAKU CO., LTD. Granted Shah Alam
1594/MUM/2007 IPCA LABORATORIES LIMITED Refused N. Ramchander
1183/CHENP/2006 LIBRESTREAM TECHNOLOGIES INC. No file uploaded V Saravanan
464/DEL/2007 HALDEX BRAKE PRODUCTS AB Granted Vinod Kumar
IN/PCT/2001/00523/MUM BIONORICA AG Refused N. Ramchander
2197/CHENP/2005 HOGL, CHRISTIAN Refused V Saravanan
644/MUM/2004 PROF. (DR.) VISHWANATH D. KARAD Granted Vikash Sharma
4760/DELNP/2007 PPG INDUSTRIES OHIO, INC Granted Dr.Rajesh Dixit
1765/MUMNP/2007 UCB PHARMA S.A., Refused Dr. Dinesh P. Patil
2124/DEL/2006 DIRECTOR GENERAL, DRDO Refused Dr Nilanjana Mukherjee
666/DELNP/2006 EZYTUBE PTY LIMITED Granted Mr. Naveen Mathur
1444/DELNP/2006 TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE  Granted Mr. Naveen Mathur
37/DEL/2007 C.R.F SOCIETA CONSORTILE PER AZIONI Granted Mr. Naveen Mathur
474/DELNP/2007 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY No file uploaded Shah Alam
3617/KOLNP/2006 SIGMA-TAU INDUSTRIE SPA Refused Dr. Sharmistha Ghosh
853/CHE/2004 LARSEN & TOURBO LIMITED No file uploaded 2(1)(ja) Parveen Kausar Baig
1823/DEL/2005 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY No file uploaded Shah Alam
1042/MUMNP/2008 QIAGEN GAITHERSBURG, INC. Granted Dr. Dinesh P. Patil
2509/MUMNP/2008 THE UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK Granted Dr. Dinesh P. Patil
2201/MUMNP/2007 INNOVIA FILMS LIMITED Refused Pankaj Borkar
3674/CHENP/2006 CBT DEVELOPEMENT LIMITED Refused Priyadharshini Rajanbabu
819/KOL/2007 BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED No file uploaded Pramathesh Sen
1129/MUM/2003 HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., Granted Vikash Sharma
3390/DELNP/2004  PENN STATE RESEARCH FOUNDATION Granted Mr. Naveen Mathur
1120/DELNP/2007 RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED Granted No file Sh.S.N.Sav
961/CHE/2005 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC Refused C Naveen Andrew
990/MUM/2003 HONDA  Granted Pankaj Borkar
935/MUM/2003 HONDA  Granted Pankaj Borkar
1969/MUM/2007 IPCA LABORATORIES LIMITED Refused N. Ramchander
1098/DELNP/2006 THE SECRETARY DHHS, NIH No file uploaded Monika Yadav
480/MUMNP/2008 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY Refused Dr. Dinesh P. Patil

Rajiv Kr. Choudhry

Rajiv did his engineering from Nagpur University in 2000 in electronics design technology. He has completed his LL.B. from Delhi University, Law Center II in 2006, while working as an engineer at ST Microelectronics in NOIDA. After his LL.B., he went on to The George Washington Univeristy, Washington DC to do his LL.M. in 2007. After his LL.M., he has worked in the US at a prestigious IP law firm based out of Philadelphia. Till 2014, he was Of-Counsel to a Noida based IP law firm where he specialized in advising clients on wireless, telecommunication, and high technology. Rajiv is the founder of Tech Law Associates, a New Delhi based law firm specializing in IP law, with a focus on high - technology, and patent law. His core IP interest areas are the intersection of technology and IP, Indian IP policy, innovation, and telecommunications patents. He is also an inventor with pending applications in machine-to-machine communications domain (WO2015029061).


  1. Anonymous

    Dear Rajiv:

    We have downloaded almost all of the decisions on the IPO site – every single one of them.

    Our assessment is that the IPO today has close to 1000 decisions on its server, open to public- afer discounting the multiple links to a single case.

    Of these, our (not completely accurate, but fairly usable) analysis gives us following data:

    a) there are around 135 decisions that ‘while posted’ do not open into any actual decision.

    b) The above can be separated into 2 main parts – ‘files not uploaded’ and the ingenious trick of ‘doc2’. Doc 2 is a situation where there is ostensibly a decision uploaded – called ‘doc2.pdf’ however when you click on it, you get a 1 page blank white page!

    c) Continuing the above aspects on non-availability of 135 odd decisions while ostensibly uploaded, these are our break-up figures – Controller wise )again, not 100% accurate, but fairly usable):
    A. T. Patre — 21 decisions missing / links not working;
    Anoop K Joy – 13 decisions missing / links not working;
    Monika Yadav – 15 decisions missing / links not working;
    All other controllers – less than 10 each, for e.g. Controller Shah Alam – 7 decisions missing / links not working.

    There seems to be no valid reason for why these decisions are not uploaded and our emails to the Patent Office on this aspect have gone unanswered.

    Freq. Anon.

  2. Anonymous

    I had earlier written my comment about passing of the orders for grant/refusal many months after the deadline. It was stated that it is no more in practice. Yes it is even now. The orders are passed in back date or if in current date showing to have given a hearing after many months of the deadline and then granted/refused. What is the purpose of deadline. All the office objections have been removed from the side of the applicant, but the fate is still unknown even after the passage of one year of the deadline for putting the application in order of acceptance/grant. The status on the website of the IPO shown the application as “under examination”. It is very difficult for us to say to the foreign clients that the deadline even though is over, but the orders are yet to be passed and that the application is still alive and under consideration.

  3. Anonymous

    It is clear that whenever Controllers have to hide something from the public, they conveniently do not upload the files.Inspite of an official order to the contrary, Controllers are still sending subsequent examination reports(sometimes even three examination reports). This puts unnecessary pressure on the applicants as they often have to respond to inconsequential objections raised by the controllers.The very intention of transparency and efficiency is neutralized by such silly tricks.

  4. Rajiv Kr. Choudhry

    Dear Anons: When I prepare the list, I can tabulate the list according to controller. But I don’t do that. This is because it is clear who are the controller’s who have not posted the decisions or are the laggards.

  5. Jitendra

    Thanks Rajiv for another nice work. Astonishingly, only 2/3 decisions have been made by the Patent Office, Kolkata. I know very well that there has been a large number of Controllers working in the Kolkata Patent Office. What are they doing now?

    In this connection I must admit that the “Kurian” Effect was appropriate to have an “Increased Efficiency at the Indian Patent Office” [http://spicyipindia.blogspot.ie/2009/04/kurian-effect-increased-efficiency-at.html]. Further to this, I must admit that Mr. P.H. Kurian was the Patent Office’s ‘Knight in Shining Armour’

    Rampant nepotism and corruption are seen in Kolkata, Delhi and Mumbai patent offices now. Even few months back Officers were scared to act in an errant manner. My experiences and the experiences of other agent houses reveal that the Head of these offices and the officers and staffs of the Designs Wing are so corrupt that they decide the cases based upon provided privileges. Repeated requests to the current CGPDTM, Mr. Prasad, didn’t melt the ice. Sufficient reasons are there to believe that blessings of the Ministry work for these Offices as there has been a coterie driven network.

    I request Spicy IP to write an investigative article on the malfunctioning of Kolkata Patent Office and the corruption and nepotism of the senior officers and staffs of Kolkata, Delhi and Mumbai Patent Offices and the Design Wing of the Patent Office. It’s time to shot with evidences, otherwise the businesses and the agent houses will be jeopardized. Ministry and CGPDTM must act accordingly in order to clear a huge backlog at Kolkata Patent Office providing a good the quality of examination.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.