PAE 2024 - Paper I Complete Solutions & Teachable Guides

Welcome to the comprehensive, 100% complete study guide and video-ready script for the **Patent Agent Examination 2024 (Paper I)**. This guide contains all 50 questions spanning Part A, Part B, and Part C, fully annotated with precise citations from the **Patents Act, 1970** and **Patents Rules, 2003**, designed to be read aloud for camera recordings and presentation. ---

--- PART A: MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS (30 Questions, 60 Marks) ---

Each question is worth 2 marks. Only one option is correct. #

Question 1: Date of Patent after Revocation Proceedings

**Question:** In a revocation proceeding in Court, Dr. Desai was able to prove that a patent granted to one of his students, Mr. Rohan, was wrongfully obtained. Post the Court's revocation order and permission of grant of the whole patent to him, Dr. Desai files a petition before the Controller to grant the said patent in his name. What would be the date of the patent granted to Dr. Desai after such proceeding? **Answer:** C. Same as revoked patent **Explanation & Reasoning:** When a patent is revoked on the grounds of wrongful obtainment (or fraud) and subsequently granted to the true and first inventor, the new patent maintains the original priority and filing date. This protects the true inventor's right to exclude others from the original date of application. On camera, explain that the law ensures the true inventor is not penalized with a later priority date due to another's fraudulent actions. **Legal Citation:** *Section 52(2) of the Patents Act, 1970* explicitly dictates that a patent granted to the true and first inventor in lieu of a wrongfully obtained patent "shall be registered and have effect as if it had been granted on the date on which the revoked patent was registered." --- #

Question 2: Protecting Musical Compositions (Raga)

**Question:** Ms. Ragini has composed an interesting and soothing Raga composition. This Raga can be used in yoga, meditation, or medication to relax or treat patients suffering from anxiety and depression. She would like to protect her IP rights. Which is the most appropriate IP Act for her to apply for protection? **Answer:** A. The Copyright Act, 1957 **Explanation & Reasoning:** A musical composition or Raga is an aesthetic, creative expression. Under patent law, musical and artistic works are excluded from patentability. The correct avenue for protecting musical compositions, melodies, and sound recordings is Copyright, which protects original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. **Legal Citation:** *Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957* provides copyright protection to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. Additionally, *Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970* excludes mere aesthetic creations from patentability. --- #

Question 3: Patentability of Mixtures (Synergistic Effect)

**Question:** A novel sunscreen formulation ‘AlZo’ is made by mixing jojoba oil and Almond oil in a certain ratio along with other excipients. The sunscreen formulation is patentable if: **Answer:** C. (SPF value of jojoba oil + SPF value of Almond oil) < SPF value of sunscreen ‘AlZo’ **Explanation & Reasoning:** To overcome objections of being a "mere admixture", a composition of known ingredients must show a "synergistic effect." This means the performance of the combined mixture must be greater than the sum of the individual contributions of its constituents. If the combined SPF of 'AlZo' is strictly greater than the added individual SPFs of jojoba and almond oil, synergy is proven. **Legal Citation:** *Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970* excludes from patentability "a substance obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of the properties of the components thereof." --- #

Question 4: Doctrine of National Treatment (Paris Convention)

**Question:** Under the Doctrine of National Treatment, as regards the protection of industrial property, each country must grant the same protection as it grants to its own nationals, to: i. Nationals of the other member countries of Paris Convention ii. Nationals of all member countries of United Nations iii. Nationals of all the countries of Paris Convention, but the same legal remedy against infringement of their rights is not available to nationals of those countries with which it fought wars in the past iv. Nationals of countries that are not party to the Paris Convention if they are domiciled in a member country or if they have a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in such a country. **Answer:** D. Only (i) and (iv) **Explanation & Reasoning:** The national treatment principle of the Paris Convention guarantees that nationals of any member state (i) enjoy the same IP protections as domestic citizens. Crucially, this benefit also extends to nationals of non-member states (iv) who are domiciled or have an active, functional industrial or commercial establishment within a member territory. **Legal Citation:** *Articles 2 and 3 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.* --- #

Question 5: Prior Art Search (Section 13 Guidelines)

**Question:** Mr. Ramayuna filed an application for the grant of patent with a provisional specification on 06/11/2012. Subsequently, a complete specification was filed on 05/11/2013. As per the provisions of Section 13, the examiner after conducting the prior art search shall report: i. Patent literatures anticipating the claims and published before 05/11/2013 ii. Patent literatures wherein the invention as claimed in Mr. Ramayuna’s application is claimed in any claim of complete specification published after 05/11/2013 but having priority before 06/11/2012 and filed in India iii. Non-Patent literatures anticipating the claims and published before 05/11/2013 **Answer:** D. All of the above **Explanation & Reasoning:** Section 13 requires a dual search. First, the examiner searches for prior publication of any document (patent or non-patent) globally published before the filing date of the complete specification (05/11/2013). Second, the examiner conducts a "prior claiming" search to identify Indian applications filed with an earlier priority date but published *after* the applicant's complete specification filing. **Legal Citation:** *Section 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), and 13(2) of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 6: Matching Case Laws with Subjects

**Question:** Over the years in the field of IPRs, significant Indian Jurisprudence has been created with regard to various aspects of patenting in India. Match the following case laws with their relevant focus: 1. Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam Vs Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd --> b. Person skilled in the art and Inventive Step 2. Standipack Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Oswal Trading Co. ltd. --> a. Post Dating 3. Novartis AG Vs Union of India --> d. Therapeutic Efficacy 4. Ferid Allani Vs Union of India --> c. Software related Patents **Answer:** D. 1-b, 2-a, 3-d, 4-c **Explanation & Reasoning:** - *Biswanath Prasad* is the locus classicus for obviousness and inventive step. - *Standipack* addresses post-dating parameters. - *Novartis* is the landmark Supreme Court decision clarifying "therapeutic efficacy" under Section 3(d). - *Ferid Allani* clarified that software-related inventions with a technical effect or technical contribution are patentable. **Legal Citation:** Indian Judicial Precedents (*Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam, 1978; Standipack, 2003; Novartis AG, 2013; Ferid Allani, 2019*). --- #

Question 7: Matching Exclusions under Section 3

**Question:** Match the following examples which are not patentable under relevant clauses of Section 3 of the Act: 1. Section 3(j) (Plants/Animals/Parts) --> e. Mouse cell 2. Section 3(h) (Agriculture/Horticulture) --> b. Method of aerating soil for improved yield 3. Section 3(i) (Medicinal/Surgical/Treatment) --> c. Method of surgical removal of teeth 4. Section 3(p) (Traditional Knowledge) --> a. Turmeric aqueous extract for pimple care 5. Section 3(c) (Natural discoveries) --> d. Isolated insulin gene **Answer:** B. 1-e, 2-b, 3-c, 4-a, 5-d **Explanation & Reasoning:** Each of these matchings represents a distinct statutory exclusion designed to keep basic agriculture, traditional knowledge, surgical procedures, natural elements, and biological parts from being monopolized. **Legal Citation:** *Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 8: Filing of Sequence Listings

**Question:** Dr. Sunita wants to file a patent application involving gene and protein data in India. What is the correct way for filing nucleotide or amino acid sequence listings in India? **Answer:** A. The sequence listing of nucleotides or amino acid sequences shall be filed in computer readable text format along with the application, and no print form of the sequence listing of nucleotides or amino acid sequences is required to be given **Explanation & Reasoning:** Under recent amendments to the Patents Rules, to modernize operations and reduce paper clutter, nucleotide and amino acid sequence listings must be submitted electronically in XML/text computer-readable format. No physical paper or print-out of the sequence is required. **Legal Citation:** *Rule 9(1) of the Patents Rules, 2003 (as amended).* --- #

Question 9: Rectification of Inventors (Pre/Post-Grant Opposition Routes)

**Question:** Mr. Madhav developed transgenic rice, but his organization patented it after he left, listing his colleagues as inventors but omitting Madhav. He wants to challenge the patent. What is the correct advice? **Answer:** D. Madhav can file a post-grant opposition u/s 25(2) with Form 7 and fee **Explanation & Reasoning:** Because the patent has already been granted, a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) is no longer available. Since Madhav is a "person interested", his primary route to challenge the grant on the grounds of wrongful obtainment (or lack of inventive step) is a post-grant opposition. This opposition must be submitted using Form 7 accompanied by the required official fee. **Legal Citation:** *Section 25(2) and Rule 55A of the Patents Act, 1970 / Patents Rules, 2003.* --- #

Question 10: Extension vs. Post-dating of Provisional Application

**Question:** Dr. Sita filed a provisional application on 01/01/2018. She needs more time to file the complete specification. What is her best legal option? **Answer:** D. Dr. Sita can post-date the application for a maximum of 6 months, provided she requests for post-dating the application before 01/01/2019 **Explanation & Reasoning:** The 12-month statutory limit to file a complete specification after a provisional cannot be extended. However, an applicant can request to "post-date" the provisional application up to a maximum of 6 months. To utilize this, she must submit the post-dating request *before* the original 12-month period expires (i.e., before 01/01/2019). **Legal Citation:** *Section 9(4) of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 11: Joint PCT International Filings

**Question:** Mr. John and Ms. Prakshi wish to file a joint PCT international application. Mr. John is a national of a PCT contracting state, but Ms. Prakshi is not. What is permitted under the PCT? **Answer:** B. They can file jointly as Mr. John is a resident/national of PCT contracting state **Explanation & Reasoning:** For a PCT international application with multiple joint applicants, it is legally sufficient if at least one of the applicants is a citizen, national, or resident of a PCT contracting state. **Legal Citation:** *PCT Article 9(1) and PCT Rule 18.3.* --- #

Question 12: Matching Section 25(1) Pre-Grant Grounds

**Question:** Match the following pre-grant opposition grounds with their relevant sub-section clauses: 1. Publicly known/used in India --> d. 25(1)(e) 2. Obviousness/Lack of Inventive Step --> b. 25(1)(b) 3. Prior anticipation --> e. 25(1)(d) 4. Claims not patentable --> a. 25(1)(f) 5. Wrongfully obtained --> c. 25(1)(a) **Answer:** D. 1-e, 2-d, 3-b, 4-a, 5-c **Explanation & Reasoning:** Matching the letter clauses: - Section 25(1)(a) relates to wrongful obtainment. - Section 25(1)(b) relates to prior anticipation by publication. - Section 25(1)(d) relates to public knowledge or public use. - Section 25(1)(e) relates to obviousness/lack of inventive step. - Section 25(1)(f) relates to the subject matter not being patentable under the Act. **Legal Citation:** *Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 13: Unauthorized Use of "Patented" Stamp

**Question:** Mr. Neelesh starts stamping "patented" on his shoes without actually applying for or holding a patent. What are the legal consequences? **Answer:** B. He shall be liable to fine/penalty **Explanation & Reasoning:** Falsely claiming that an article is patented in India is an offense punishable by a fine/penalty up to one lakh rupees. It is a monetary fine, and does not carry an imprisonment term. **Legal Citation:** *Section 120 of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 14: Conversion of Independent Patent to Patent of Addition

**Question:** Application A was filed on 01/04/2019. Application B (an improvement on A) was filed on 31/03/2019. Can B be converted to a patent of addition of A? **Answer:** B. It is not possible to convert B to a patent of addition of A **Explanation & Reasoning:** An independent patent can be converted into a patent of addition *only* if the filing date of the application for the improvement/addition (B) is equal to or later than the filing date of the main patent (A). Because B was filed *before* A, conversion is legally impossible. **Legal Citation:** *Section 54(2) of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 15: WIPO Digital Access Service (DAS) & Centralized Access (CASE)

**Question:** Which of the statements regarding WIPO DAS and WIPO CASE systems are correct? **Answer:** C. Only (i), (ii) and (iii) **Explanation & Reasoning:** DAS allows secure electronic sharing of priority documents. CASE allows patent offices to share search and examination results. Both are work-sharing arrangements. India is a member of both DAS and CASE, making statement (iv) false. **Legal Citation:** WIPO Treaty Guidelines and Indian Patent Office notifications (India joined DAS in 2018 and CASE in 2020). --- #

Question 16: Secrecy Directions for Defense Inventions

**Question:** Mr. Akram's AI Nanobot application is placed under secrecy directions by the Controller due to defense interest. What are the consequences? **Answer:** A. Only (i) **Explanation & Reasoning:** While secrecy directions are active, the application cannot be published, and the Controller cannot refuse or grant it. Under Section 37(2), no appeal lies against any order of the Controller under this section (making statement ii false). **Legal Citation:** *Section 37(1)(a) and Section 37(2) of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 17: Grounds for Opposing Restoration of Lapsed Patent

**Question:** On what grounds can an opponent oppose an application for the restoration of a lapsed patent? **Answer:** A. Only (i) and (ii) **Explanation & Reasoning:** Under Section 61, the only valid statutory grounds for opposing restoration of a lapsed patent are: 1. The failure to pay renewal fees was *not* unintentional. 2. There was an undue delay in filing the restoration application. **Legal Citation:** *Section 61(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 18: Matching Global IP Treaties with Subject Matters

**Question:** Match the treaties/agreements with their corresponding subject matter: 1. PCT --> c. Patent 2. Hague --> d. Industrial Design 3. Berne --> b. Copyright 4. Madrid --> a. Registration of Marks 5. Budapest Treaty --> e. Deposit of Microorganisms **Answer:** C. 1-c, 2-d, 3-b, 4-a, 5-e **Explanation & Reasoning:** Each agreement represents a cornerstone of WIPO administrative structures managing distinct IP rights (patents, design, copyright, trademarks, and microbial deposits). **Legal Citation:** International IP treaties (Budapest, Madrid, Berne, Hague, PCT). --- #

Question 19: Counter-Claim for Revocation in Infringement Suit

**Question:** Novel Corp files an infringement suit in District Court. Inventive Corp responds with a counter-claim for revocation. Where will the case proceed? **Answer:** C. The infringement suit along with the counter-claim for revocation shall be transferred to the concerned High Court **Explanation & Reasoning:** When a defendant in an infringement suit files a counter-claim for patent revocation, the District Court loses jurisdiction, and the entire suit must be transferred to the High Court immediately. **Legal Citation:** *Proviso to Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 20: Amendments under PCT Article 19 vs. Article 34

**Question:** Hafnium Corp received an International Search Report (ISR) from ISA-India. It wishes to make amendments. Which option is correct? **Answer:** D. None of the above **Explanation & Reasoning:** - Article 19 amendments are limited *only to claims* and must be filed within 2 months of the transmittal of the ISR (not 3 months). - Article 34 allows description, claims, and drawings to be amended (not "only claims"). Therefore, options A, B, and C contain structural errors, leaving D as the correct choice. **Legal Citation:** *PCT Article 19 and PCT Article 34.* --- #

Question 21: Legal Definition of Inventive Step

**Question:** Let A = Technical advance, B = Economic significance, C = Non-obviousness. What is the definition of "Inventive Step"? **Answer:** C. (A or B or (A and B)) and C **Explanation & Reasoning:** To possess an inventive step, an invention must have *either* technical advancement (A) *or* economic significance (B) *or* both, AND it must make the invention non-obvious to a person skilled in the art (C). **Legal Citation:** *Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 22: Privileges for Private Educational Institutions

**Question:** Can Bharat Institute of Engineering and Technology (a private educational institute) benefit from fee reduction and expedited examination? **Answer:** A. BIET can file expedited examination request and a reduction in fee in filing application **Explanation & Reasoning:** Under the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2021, the category of "Educational Institution" was simplified and expanded. All recognized educational institutions, whether public or private, are entitled to an 80% fee reduction and are eligible to file requests for expedited examination. **Legal Citation:** *Rule 2(ca) and Rule 24C(1)(k) of the Patents Rules, 2003.* --- #

Question 23: Prior Communication to Government Agencies

**Question:** Dr. Kavya communicated her research to a government funding agency, which published it in internal proceedings before she filed a patent. Is the application anticipated? **Answer:** D. Patent application is not deemed to have been anticipated by communication to Government agency **Explanation & Reasoning:** Communication of an invention to a government department or agency for investigation of its merits does not constitute prior anticipation. **Legal Citation:** *Section 30 of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 24: Post-Grant Opposition Timeline Post-Amendment

**Question:** Daivam's patent was granted/published on 19/02/2018. An amendment was published on 19/05/2018. What is the opposition timeline? **Answer:** A. Only (i) **Explanation & Reasoning:** A post-grant opposition must be filed within 1 year from the date of publication of the patent grant (i.e., before 19/02/2019). The publication of amendments does *not* reset or extend the 1-year timeline for post-grant opposition. **Legal Citation:** *Section 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 25: Correcting Clerical Errors (Section 57 vs. Section 78)

**Question:** What are the correct legal mechanisms for correcting errors in a patent specification? **Answer:** B. Only (ii) **Explanation & Reasoning:** - Section 78 clerical corrections require Form 14 and a prescribed fee (making statement i false as it is not free). - Section 57 corrections/amendments require Form 13 and fee (True). **Legal Citation:** *Section 57 and Section 78 of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 26: Depository Institution Disclosures and Infringement Rights

**Question:** For a patent application filed on 19/05/2014, published on 26/11/2015, and granted on 19/05/2018, when do public access and infringement rights arise? **Answer:** B. Only (ii) and (iv) **Explanation & Reasoning:** - The depository institution releases the biological sample only *after* the application is published (26/11/2015 onwards, making i false). - The patent office opens the files to the public on publication (26/11/2015) (True). - Infringement suits can only be filed *after* the patent is granted (19/05/2018, making iii false). - The applicant enjoys damages retrospectively from the publication date (26/11/2015) (True). **Legal Citation:** *Section 11A(4) and Section 45 of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 27: Biological Material Disclosure Requirements

**Question:** What are the disclosure requirements for using a non-publicly available biological material in an invention? **Answer:** C. Only (i) and (iii) **Explanation & Reasoning:** The deposit must be made before or on the filing date of the application in India, and the reference must be added to the specification (True). The specification must disclose the depository name, address, and deposit details (True). Source and geographical origin are mandatory (making iv false). **Legal Citation:** *Section 10(4)(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 28: Global Patent Classification Systems

**Question:** Which of the following are recognized patent classification systems? **Answer:** D. All of the above **Explanation & Reasoning:** International Patent Classification (IPC), Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC), FI/F-term (Japanese), and ECLA (European) are all recognized global classifications used by examiners. **Legal Citation:** WIPO Patent Classification reference guides. --- #

Question 29: Review of Controller Decisions

**Question:** To request a review of a Controller's refusal under Section 15, what form must be used, and what is the timeline? **Answer:** A. 24, one month **Explanation & Reasoning:** An application to review a decision of the Controller must be made on Form 24 within one month from the date of communication of the decision. **Legal Citation:** *Section 77(1)(f) and Rule 130 of the Patents Act/Rules.* --- #

Question 30: Amendment of Patent for Deceased Patentee

**Question:** Mr. Swamy's patent was granted on 31/03/2023, but he passed away on 25/02/2023. What form and section must his legal heir use to substitute the name? **Answer:** B. 10, 44 **Explanation & Reasoning:** When a patentee dies before grant, the legal representative can apply on Form 10 under Section 44 to amend the patent by substituting their name. **Legal Citation:** *Section 44 of the Patents Act, 1970.* ---

--- PART B: ASSERTION & REASONING / TRUE & FALSE (10 Questions, 10 Marks) ---

Each question is worth 1 mark. Select from A, B, C, or D. #

Question 31: Validity of Patents

**Question:** Assertion (A): The Examination process under the Act warrants the validity of the Patents granted under the Act. Reasoning (R): The Examination of patent application under section 12 and 13 ensures the above validity of the patent. **Answer:** D. When (A) and (R) both are False **Explanation & Reasoning:** In Indian patent law, the grant of a patent is never warranted or guaranteed to be valid by the patent office. The examination process does not protect the patent from future revocation or invalidation. **Legal Citation:** *Section 13(4) of the Patents Act, 1970* explicitly states that no investigation or examination shall be held to warrant the validity of any patent. --- #

Question 32: Proof of Right Requirement

**Question:** Assertion (A): In India, an applicant who is not an inventor must submit Proof of Right/Assignment from the inventor(s). Reasoning (R): Under Section 6 of the Act, true and first inventor or his assignee or his legal representative only are entitled to apply for patent. **Answer:** A. When Both (A) and (R) are True, and (R) is a correct Explanation of (A) **Explanation & Reasoning:** Only the true inventor, their assignee, or legal representative can apply. Therefore, if the applicant is not the inventor (i.e., an assignee), they must produce a Proof of Right to prove their eligibility. **Legal Citation:** *Section 6 and Section 7(2) of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 33: Function and Scope of Claims

**Question:** Assertion (A): The claims define in technical terms the extent, i.e. the scope, of the protection conferred by a patent, or the protection sought in a patent application. Reasoning (R): Product claims specify the characteristics and features of a particular invention. On the other hand, process claims outline the methods or steps involved in creating or using the invention. **Answer:** B. When Both (A) and (R) are True, but (R) is NOT a correct Explanation of (A) **Explanation & Reasoning:** Both statements are true. However, the explanation of product/process claim types (R) is not the logical explanation of *why* claims define the boundary of legal protection (A). **Legal Citation:** *Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 34: Working of Patents (Form 27 Basis)

**Question:** Assertion (A): Every patentee and licensee has to furnish a statement regarding working of the patented invention on a commercial scale in India at regular intervals. Reasoning (R): Patents are not granted merely to enable patentees to enjoy a monopoly for the importation of the patented articles, but to encourage inventions and to secure that they are worked in India on a commercial scale. **Answer:** A. When Both (A) and (R) are True, and (R) is a correct Explanation of (A) **Explanation & Reasoning:** The requirement to submit Form 27 (A) is a direct consequence of the legislative policy (R) that prevents patents from becoming mere import monopolies. **Legal Citation:** *Section 83(a) and Section 146(2) of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 35: Patent Facilitators Scheme Fee Structures

**Question:** Assertion (A): The Patent Facilitators Scheme, introduced by the Government of India, involves engaging professionals and organizations to assist startups in preparing and filing patent applications. Reasoning (R): The remuneration to be paid to the facilitator varies as per the field of technology in which the patent application has been filed. **Answer:** C. When (A) is true but (R) is False **Explanation & Reasoning:** A is true. However, under the SIPP (Scheme for Facilitating Start-ups Intellectual Property Protection), the fees paid to facilitators are fixed by the government based on the stage of filing, not the technology field. **Legal Citation:** *SIPP Scheme Guidelines, CGPDTM.* --- #

Question 36: Extensions of Examination Timelines

**Question:** Statement 1: The timeline for filing a request for expedited examination can be extended by the Controller in response to a petition filed by the applicant to do so. Statement 2: The extension of time given to applicant by Controller under section 81 is not appealable. **Answer:** D. When Both Statements 1 and 2 are False **Explanation & Reasoning:** - Statement 1 is false: The timeline for filing a request for examination or expedited examination is non-extendable. - Statement 2 is false: Section 81 is not about extension of time; it regulates amendments in proceedings before the High Court. **Legal Citation:** *Rule 138 of the Patents Rules, 2003 and Section 81 of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 37: PCT Applicant Variations & Specs

**Question:** Statement 1: In a PCT application, applicant name may be different for different designated states at national phase. Statement 2: In a PCT national phase application designating India, the complete specification filed in the international application shall be taken as complete specification in India. **Answer:** C. When Both Statements 1 and 2 are True **Explanation & Reasoning:** Both statements are accurate. PCT allows designating different applicants for different states, and the international specification acts as the complete specification in India. **Legal Citation:** *PCT Rule 18.5 and Rule 20(1) of the Patents Rules, 2003.* --- #

Question 38: Uniformity of Patent Terms in India

**Question:** Statement 1: In India, Term of Patent has been 20 years ever since the Patents Act, 1970 came into force on 20/04/1972. Statement 2: Irrespective of the field of invention, the term of patent has been uniform since 1999 in India. **Answer:** D. When Both Statements 1 and 2 are False **Explanation & Reasoning:** - Statement 1 is false: Originally, terms were 7 years (food/drug) or 14 years. - Statement 2 is false: The uniform 20-year term was introduced by the 2002 Amendment, which took effect on 20/05/2003. **Legal Citation:** *Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended in 2002).* --- #

Question 39: Deriving Priorities

**Question:** Statement 1: The date of priority once decided for an application may not be amended. Statement 2: It is not possible to derive priorities from more than five earlier applications in a single application for grant of patent. **Answer:** D. When Both Statements 1 and 2 are False **Explanation & Reasoning:** - Statement 1 is false: Priority dates can be amended or post-dated under proper conditions. - Statement 2 is false: The law does not limit the number of priority applications you can claim in a single application. **Legal Citation:** *Section 11 and Section 135 of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 40: Rights of an Exclusive Licensee

**Question:** Statement 1: An exclusive licensee can institute infringement proceedings on his own. Statement 2: An exclusive licensee can be awarded damages/compensation in an infringement suit by the Court. **Answer:** C. When Both Statements 1 and 2 are True **Explanation & Reasoning:** An exclusive licensee enjoys the same rights as the patentee to institute infringement suits and recover damages/compensation. **Legal Citation:** *Section 109 of the Patents Act, 1970.* ---

--- PART C: MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS (10 Questions, 30 Marks) ---

Each question is worth 3 marks. Select the most appropriate option. #

Question 41: Who Can File a Petition for Patent Revocation?

**Question:** Which of the following entities may file a petition for revocation of a granted patent? i. Any person ii. Any interested person iii. Central Government iv. State Government v. Controller of Patent vi. Defendant in any infringement suit by way of a counter-claim **Answer:** C. Only (ii), (iii) and (vi) **Explanation & Reasoning:** Unlike pre-grant opposition which is open to "any person", revocation petitions are strictly restricted to: 1. Any person interested (ii) 2. The Central Government (iii) 3. A defendant filing a counter-claim in an infringement suit (vi) **Legal Citation:** *Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 42: Legal Enablement Terminology across Patent Stages

**Question:** Which of the following sections are correctly matched with their relevant phrases: i. Section 10(4)(a) - fully and particularly ii. Section 25(1)(g) - sufficiently and clearly iii. Section 25(2)(g) - fully and sufficiently iv. Section 64(1)(h) - sufficiently and fairly **Answer:** C. Only (i), (ii), and (iv) **Explanation & Reasoning:** - Section 10(4)(a) uses "fully and particularly". (Correct) - Section 25(1)(g) uses "sufficiently and clearly". (Correct) - Section 25(2)(g) also uses "sufficiently and clearly" (making matching iii incorrect). - Section 64(1)(h) uses "sufficiently and fairly". (Correct) **Legal Citation:** *Sections 10(4)(a), 25(1)(g), 25(2)(g), and 64(1)(h) of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 43: Conventional Application and Co-Applicants

**Question:** Tanaka (Japan) filed an application on 25/07/2015 and assigned rights to Oto. Oto wants to file a conventional application in India on 24/07/2016, listing Meenakshi as a co-applicant. What is the correct option? **Answer:** B. (ii) and (iii) **Explanation & Reasoning:** Only the original priority applicant or their assignee can file the convention application in India (ii). For Meenakshi to be added as a co-applicant, Oto must execute a partial assignment of rights to Meenakshi *prior* to filing the application in India (iii). **Legal Citation:** *Section 135 of the Patents Act, 1970.* --- #

Question 44: Legislative Origin of Timelines (Act vs. Rules)

**Question:** Where are the timelines for various patent actions specified in the legislation? **Answer:** C. Under Patents Act - (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv); Under Patents Rules – (v) and (vi) **Explanation & Reasoning:** Timelines for complete specification after provisional (i), patent terms (ii), restoration filings (iii), and post-grant opposition periods (iv) are governed directly by the primary legislation (the Act). Request for examination timelines (v) and review petitions (vi) are governed by the secondary legislation (the Rules). **Legal Citation:** *Patents Act, 1970 and Patents Rules, 2003.* --- #

Question 45: WIPO IP Diagnostics (Indian Adaptation)

**Question:** Which statements are correct regarding the WIPO IP Diagnostics Indian Adaptation launched at the National IPR Conference 2023? **Answer:** A. Only (i), (ii) and (iii) **Explanation & Reasoning:** The tool is a self-assessment software tool for SMEs/MSMEs (i) that generates reports from targeted questions (ii) using a local Indian context (iii). It does not exchange search reports between examiners (iv) or cover plant varieties (v). **Legal Citation:** WIPO launch briefs, National IPR Conference 2023. --- #

Question 46: Statements of Working (Form 27 Rules)

**Question:** In the context of filing Form 27 on working of patents, which statements are true? **Answer:** A. Only (i), (ii) and (iii) **Explanation & Reasoning:** Every patentee (i) and exclusive licensee (ii) must file Form 27. Joint applicants can submit a single joint Form 27 (iii). Different licensees do not file jointly (iv). **Legal Citation:** *Section 146(2) and Rule 131 of the Patents Act/Rules.* --- #

Question 47: Matching Forms and Sections

**Question:** Which option does NOT correctly match the Topic, Form, and Section? **Answer:** C. 3-IV-A **Explanation & Reasoning:** Option C matches "Notice of Opposition" (3) with Form 15 (IV) and Section 57/Rule 81(1) (A). Notice of Opposition actually requires Form 7, while Form 15 is for the restoration of lapsed patents. **Legal Citation:** Schedule I / Schedule II, *Patents Rules, 2003*. --- #

Question 48: Biological Resource Benefit Sharing

**Question:** Jack and Jill patented a chocolate product developed from a plant sample obtained from a local tribe. What are the appropriate benefit-sharing options? **Answer:** D. Only i, ii, iii and v **Explanation & Reasoning:** Under Indian Biodiversity law, commercializing natural biological resources or related traditional knowledge requires equitable benefit sharing with the local tribe/custodians. This includes partnership (i), sharing a percentage of profits (ii, v), or community upliftment (iii). Keeping all profits (iv) or ignoring obligations (vii) violates the law. **Legal Citation:** *Section 6 and Section 21 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.* --- #

Question 49: Restoration of Patent Agent Name

**Question:** Mr. Allu's name was removed from the Register of Patent Agents on 25/03/2023. How and when can he request restoration? **Answer:** A. Only (ii) and (iii) **Explanation & Reasoning:** An application for name restoration must be filed within 2 months of removal (by 25/05/2023) (ii) using Form 23 accompanied by the prescribed fee (iii). **Legal Citation:** *Rule 117 of the Patents Rules, 2003.* --- #

Question 50: Surrendering a Patent (Section 63 Rules)

**Question:** Dr. Sudha is unable to commercially exploit or maintain her patent. What are her options regarding surrendering the patent? **Answer:** B. Only (i) and (iii) **Explanation & Reasoning:** An offer to surrender must be submitted under Section 63 (i). If accepted after publishing and handling any third-party oppositions, the Controller will revoke the patent (iii). Surrender does not provide a refund of fees (making ii and v false). Section 62 regulates patent terms, not surrender (making iv false). **Legal Citation:** *Section 63 of the Patents Act, 1970.*