CS Professional · Intellectual Property Rights - Law and Practice · Patent Documentation, Examination and Infringement
Anita Dynamics Ltd filed an application, and the Controller issued a secrecy direction under Section 35. The direction was later revoked. Regarding the request for examination, which statement is correct under Section 11B?
The request may be made within the prescribed period counted from the date of revocation of the secrecy direction. The proviso to Section 11B(4) gives this concession where a secrecy direction was issued under section 35, so the original period does not bar the applicant.
- AThe request must have been made within the original prescribed period regardless of the direction
- BThe application is withdrawn automatically upon revocation
- CThe request may be made within the prescribed period from the date of revocation of the secrecy directionCorrect
- DExamination is dispensed with for such applications
Explanation
Proviso (ii) to Section 11B(4) says that where a secrecy direction has been issued under section 35, the request for examination may be made within the prescribed period from the date of revocation of the direction. The first option ignores this proviso. Nothing dispenses with examination or causes automatic withdrawal on revocation.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Patent Documentation, Examination and Infringement shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Patent Documentation, Examination and Infringement questions
- Zenith Agro Pvt Ltd's patent application for a drought-resistant seed treatment was published on 1 March, and no patent has yet been granted…
- Meera Pharma holds an exclusive licence of a patent from the patentee, Dr. Rao, effective 1 April. Hari Labs infringed the patent on 15 Marc…
- Vikram Engineering made a request for examination of its application under Section 11B. Which statement about what follows and about the rul…
- Anil Engineering filed Application A in India on 1 April. Another applicant, Bharat Motors, filed Application B on 1 July claiming the same …
- Anita Textiles sues Bharat Looms for infringing a patented loom mechanism. Bharat Looms proves that when it sold the looms it neither knew n…
- Farhan Motors is sued for infringement of a patent. The patentee earlier obtained a High Court certificate under section 113 that the validi…