THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON PATENT FILING AND EXAMINATION PROCEDURES IN INDIA

This article is written by Raseena A, Faculty of Law University of Delhi, LL. B final year student, during her internship at Le Droit India.

Scope of the Article

1. Introduction.
2. Pre-pandemic patent administration structure.
3. COVID-19 and the systemic disruption of patent filling.
4. Digital migration of patent procedures.
5. Examination delays and backlog expansion.
6. Supreme Court limitation orders and statutory extensions.
7. Effects on hearing, controller discretion and procedural fairness.
8. Sector specific filling trends during the pandemic.
9. Patent litigation, interim relief, and enforcement slowdown.
10. Comparative international responses.
11. Lessons for the Indian patent system.
12. Conclusion.

ABSTRACT

The impact of COVID-19 has resulted in an unprecedented disruption within India’s patent filing and examination ecosystem. The process of patent filing has transitioned almost entirely to an online platform, while the procedures of the IPO have moved to digital hearings, leading to a slowdown in examination timelines due to significant administrative constraints. Delays in patent examination have increased backlogs and modified the operational dynamics of IP administration in India. The IPO procedures have adapted through notifications that provide relaxation and have relied on limitation orders from the Supreme Court.

The transition to digital hearings has redefined the concept of procedural fairness, and the patterns of patent filing have shifted towards pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, and software-enabled medical technologies. This article explores statutory timelines, public notices, case law, and structural changes to analyze how the pandemic has transformed the functioning of the Indian patent system and what aspects may endure as long-term institutional changes.

KEYWORDS: Patent Filling, COVID-19 Impact, Patent Examination, IPO Procedures, Digital Hearing, IP Administration.

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 transformed the patent ecosystem by disrupting all operational dependencies inherent in the Indian Patent Office. The legal framework governing patent administration is structured around predictable statutory phases, sequential compliance, and ongoing exchanges between examiners and applicants. The pandemic disrupted this continuity. Each disruption led to secondary consequences were delayed First Examination Reports (FER) cycles, altered sectoral filing priorities, uneven levels of digital readiness, limited adjudicatory capacity, and a systemic dependence on external judicial extensions instead of internal administrative adjustments. This scenario illustrates that patent administration operates as a closely interconnected system where the failure of physical access immediately results in procedural collapse.

Furthermore, the pandemic exposed significant disparities among regional patent offices. Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata functioned with varying levels of digital maturity, leading to different outcomes for applicants in similar situations. This inconsistency is crucial for understanding the distortion of patent rights during the pandemic, as varying procedural capacities diminish legal predictability and compromise national uniformity in examination standards. These systemic fractures lay out the groundwork for the subsequent sections.

PRE-PANDEMIC PATENT ADMINISTRATION STRUCTURE

Prior to 2020, India’s patent administration operated in a hybrid manner. While e-filing was available, it was significantly complemented by the submission of physical documents, regular in-person hearings, and considerable reliance on regional patent offices. The timelines for patent examination, as dictated by the Patents Act of 1970 and the Patents Rules of 2003, adhered to fixed statutory periods. Controllers depended on in-office collaboration to issue First Examination Reports (FERs) and to manage responses.

There was a notable absence of infrastructure for video-based hearings. The system was reliant on manual processes, heavy in person workload, and geographically dispersed processing. These characteristics contributed to the system’s vulnerability when physical operations ceased. The internal workflow of the patent office was based on clusters of examiners, the physical movement of files, and the necessity for on-site supervisory approval.

This system evolved historically within a bureaucratic framework that was ill-suited for remote operations. The quality of examinations was contingent upon the physical proximity of examiners for technical discussions and iterative reviews. Controllers frequently need to engage in face-to-face communication with examiners to verify prior art evaluations, claim interpretations, and objections under Sections 3(k), 3(d), and 3(i). Consequently, the office could not operate effectively once personnel were dispersed.

Although the office’s IT systems were periodically updated, they lacked integrated teleconferencing capabilities, cloud-based coordinated examination platforms, or secure document handling for remote access. This existing technological shortfall exacerbated the disruption once lockdown measures were implemented. Recognizing the pre-pandemic baseline is crucial, as it clarifies why the COVID-19 disruption led to systemic stress rather than merely a temporary administrative challenge.

COVID-19 AND THE SYSTEMIC DISRUPTION OF PATENT FILLING

In March 2020, lockdowns resulted in the closure of physical access to all four patent offices. Consequently, the filing process transitioned entirely to online platforms. Applicants lacking digital proficiency found themselves at a significant disadvantage. The submission of physical documents, such as evidence, Power of Attorney forms, priority documents, and notarized materials, became unfeasible. Initially, India’s response involved a temporary easing of submission requirements, communicated through public notices from the Controller General.

The archive of public notices from the Indian Patent Office reflects a series of extensions throughout 2020 and 2021. The shockwave from these filing changes manifested in three key areas of access limitations, documentation delays, and procedural ambiguity. Access limitations arose as thousands of applicants depended on patent agents who typically prepared documents in office environments equipped with specialized software, high-capacity scanners, and physical libraries of prior art references. The home-based work settings lacked this necessary infrastructure, which hindered the preparation of specifications, drawings, sequence listings, and declarations. Documentation delays occurred when applicants were unable to notarize, legalize, or send mandatory forms as required by Rule 20, Rule 21, and PCT related regulations.

Although the IPO allowed delayed submissions, the lack of coordinated guidance led to inconsistent compliance approaches. Procedural ambiguity emerged because the initial public notices offered temporary relief but did not provide long-term clarity until the Supreme Court’s limitation orders established a more stable framework. These disruptions collectively altered applicant behavior. Many opted for provisional specifications to secure early priority while deferring full disclosure until stability was restored. Others hastened their filings in anticipation of market rebounds following the pandemic. These behavioral changes have now become integral components of Indian patent strategy.

DIGITAL MIGRATION OF PATENT PROCEDURES

The shift to digital procedures was mandated rather than strategically planned. Hearings conducted under Rule 28, Rule 30, and Rule 131 transitioned to video conferencing. The scheduling of these hearings was contingent upon the Controller’s judgment and the available bandwidth. Participants encountered frequent audio interruptions, connectivity issues, and shortened hearing times. Notwithstanding these challenges, digital hearings eliminated geographical barriers and reduced participation expenses for applicants located outside of major urban areas.

The procedures of the IPO underwent permanent modifications like virtual hearings were formalized through subsequent practice notes even after the conclusion of lockdowns. The Indian Patent Office concurrently enhanced the electronic distribution of First Examination Reports (FERs), notifications, and orders. Examiners collaborated remotely. However, the processing capacity diminished as staff worked in shifts. The adaptation to digital workflows varied significantly among different technical divisions. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors managed relatively higher workloads due to their relevance to public health.

The compulsory transition to virtual hearings transformed the culture of adjudication. Conventional hearings facilitated prolonged technical discussions, detailed debates on each claim, and the examination of revised specifications with physical annotations. In contrast, virtual hearings streamlined this entire process. Controllers were tasked with managing substantial caseloads within limited timeframes. Applicants responded by submitting comprehensive written documents, technical notes, expert declarations, and claim charts, as the reliability of oral arguments decreased. This shift modified the evidentiary balance in prosecution.

Written advocacy became crucial. Moreover, virtual systems foster new communication patterns between examiners and applicants. Clarifications via email supplanted spontaneous interactions. While digital records enhanced traceability, they also diminished flexibility. The digital transformation extended beyond hearing. The office moved to electronic FER templates, automated reminders, and centralized document access, establishing a modern infrastructure that likely would not have developed without the pressures of the pandemic.

EXAMINATION DELAYS AND BACKLOG EXPANSION

The patent examination process experienced the most significant operational disruption. The issuance of First Examination Reports (FER) has decelerated across all offices. Factors such as staff shortages, inadequate digital infrastructure, and procedural bottlenecks led to prolonged delays. Statutory deadlines stipulated under Section 21 of the Patents Act could not be uniformly enforced, as applicants were unable to fulfill procedural requirements. The backlog saw a substantial increase during the period 2020 to 2022. The disposal of FERs became increasingly sluggish, and available hearing dates became limited. Numerous applicants missed commercial opportunities as grant timelines extended beyond their anticipated product launch schedules.

The discretion of Controllers expanded. With hearings being restricted, Controllers relied more heavily on written submissions. Certain offices gave priority to health-related patents, resulting in uneven examination timelines across different fields. The examination of patents in mechanical, electrical, and software-related technologies experienced a dramatic slowdown.

The expansion of the backlog must be understood through the lens of administrative metrics. The output of examinations is influenced by the availability of examiners, the capacity of technology, the cycles of supervisory approval, and the workload associated with complex applications. When examiners worked remotely, the cycles of coordination became extended. Delays increased as each FER necessitates internal quality assessments, validation of search reports, and legal scrutiny.

Due to staff rotations and health-related absences, the throughput significantly decreased. Examinations in the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors proceeded more efficiently as public interest directed resources towards these areas. Conversely, other sectors experienced stagnation. The backlog carries long-term implications. The value of patents is contingent upon time. Delayed grants diminish the enforceable lifespan of patents and erode investor confidence. India’s competitiveness in patents post-pandemic will hinge on the speed at which the system addresses the existing backlog.

SUPREME COURT LIMITATION ORDERS AND STATUTORY EXTENSIONS

The most notable procedural relief was provided by the Supreme Court’s Suo moto extension of limitation periods starting from 23 March 2020. The limitation of orders established an unprecedented legal framework. No previous occurrence had suspended statutory patent deadlines on a national scale. The orders effectively mitigated the risk of abandonment under Section 21. This led to a transformation in examination dynamics. While applicants enjoyed increased flexibility, the system’s predictability diminished.

The suspension obscured the line between mandatory statutory compliance and discretionary procedural relief. Following the restoration of normal limitations, the office needed to reinstate a culture of strict compliance. Numerous applicants submitted multiple declarations detailing delays related to COVID, which controllers routinely accepted. This shift altered the enforcement philosophy regarding procedural defaults. The pandemic illustrated that inflexible statutory timelines could be relaxed without undermining the system, potentially impacting future reforms.

The extension encompassed all deadlines stipulated by any general or special law. Patent deadlines subject to statutory limitations, which include:

• responses to FERs,

• submissions of missing documents,

• requests for examination (RFE),

• evidence deadlines in pre-grant oppositions,

• and deadlines for filing appeals under the Patents Act, were included within its scope.

This blanket extension applied until 28 February 2022. The effect was unprecedented. No applicant risked statutory abandonment during this period. Controllers accepted delays citing COVID-19 as sufficient justification. The legal framework effectively suspended patent procedural strictness for nearly two years. This altered enforcement of statutory timelines and created post-pandemic normalization challenges.

EFFECTS ON HEARING, CONTROLLER DISCRETION AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

Procedural fairness was affected unevenly. Technical hearings that involved intricate chemical structures, genetic sequences, or claims related to electrical engineering faced disadvantages due to unreliable screen-sharing capabilities. Some applicants sought additional hearings. However, the schedules of controllers were fully booked. Remote adversarial hearings in opposition proceedings became increasingly complicated, as the effective replication of expert cross-examination through unstable video platforms proved challenging.

This situation introduced new interpretive dilemmas regarding what constitutes a sufficient opportunity to be heard in accordance with natural justice principles. Courts highlighted the importance of fairness in related intellectual property contexts, indirectly influencing patent practices. The case of Ericsson v Intex reaffirmed that procedural opportunities must be substantial, even when conducted under limited formats. During the pandemic, the discretion of patent offices expanded, yet it remained constrained by the principle of administrative reasonableness.

Procedural fairness standards were reassessed. Virtual hearings established unequal participation conditions. Parties equipped with robust digital infrastructure gained a competitive edge. Controllers managed an increased volume of written-only resolutions. Occasionally, parties were allotted limited time for oral arguments due to the shorter duration of virtual slots compared to in-person hearings.

Case law concerning remote proceedings has indirectly shaped patent practices.

• Bajaj Auto Ltd v TVS Motor Company Ltd underscored the significance of prompt adjudication in intellectual property issues.
• Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Intex Technologies stressed the necessity for equitable procedural opportunities in technical disputes.
• Ferid Allani v Union of India elucidated the standards for substantive examination of computer-related inventions, thereby impacting the quality of examinations conducted during digital processes.

SECTOR SPECIFIC FILLING TRENDS DURING THE PANDEMIC

The COVID-19 pandemic created a distinctive convergence of public health priorities, commercial demands, and research and development efforts. Pharmaceutical companies expedited their submissions for antivirals, immune modulating agents, drug delivery systems, rapid testing solutions, and molecular diagnostic instruments. There was an increase in government funding directed towards biomedical innovation. Universities partnered with private enterprises to develop patentable technologies.

Startups in the medical device sector concentrated on respiratory support systems, sterilization devices, and affordable diagnostic tools, leading to the creation of numerous patents related to the pandemic. Innovation driven by software technology experienced significant growth. There was a notable rise in filings for telemedicine systems, AI-based triage models, remote monitoring platforms, and digital supply chain solutions. The pandemic reshaped India’s landscape of innovation by steering inventors towards solutions that are highly useful and health focused.

This transformation continues to be relevant today. Pharmaceutical and diagnostic technologies were the primary focus of filings. The pandemic expedited research and development for antivirals, testing kits, ventilators, and protective gear. Domestic firms pursue aggressive filing strategies to secure early-stage protection in international markets. Filings related to medical AI and health-tech software saw a rise as remote care technologies experienced rapid expansion. The number of patents in information technology and fintech increased due to a surge in digital adoption during lockdowns.

Universities and research institutions filed more provisional patents because of heightened research funding aimed at biomedical sectors. Entries into the national phase of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) rose as applicants sought to mitigate uncertainty by securing priority dates on an international scale. Applicants submitted broader claims in anticipation of market changes.

PATENT LITIGATION, INTERIM RELIEF, AND ENFORCEMENT SLOWDOWN

The deceleration in patent litigation had an impact on commercial strategy. Interim injunctions frequently dictate the overall worth of a patent dispute. As courts operated under limited capacity, the timelines for urgent relief became extended. Certain plaintiffs delayed initiating lawsuits due to the inability of courts to assure prompt hearings. Defendants gained from prolonged opportunities to persist in allegedly infringing activities. Trials were put on hold. Expert testimony, which is vital in patent cases, could not be conducted virtually in numerous situations.

Patent lawsuits that necessitated the demonstration of device functionality, chemical properties, or pharmaceutical equivalence turned out to be nearly unmanageable. Consequently, the pandemic indirectly undermined patent enforcement, diminishing the effective strength of granted patents. This situation elucidates why some entities redirected their attention from litigation to licensing discussions during the period 2020 to 2022.

Patent enforcement experienced a slowdown across various courts. The lockdowns imposed restrictions on court operations, resulting in only urgent matters being prioritized for immediate listing. Securing interim injunctions in patent disputes became increasingly challenging due to delays in hearings. Furthermore, the recording of evidence in patent trials nearly ceased altogether. Novartis AG v Union of India Which addresses the substantive standard for patentability, offering foundational doctrinal clarity during periods of procedural delays. Other intellectual property lawsuits during this timeframe encountered limited physical hearings and extended interim phases. Although courts gradually began to conduct virtual hearings, complex patent cases that necessitated expert testimony, demonstrations of inventions, or cross-examinations experienced considerable delays.

COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSES

WIPO has reported a significant increase in digital adoption across patent offices worldwide. The USPTO, EPO, and JPO have implemented structured extensions, remote examination models, and a complete shift to virtual communications. India has aligned itself with international trends. However, it has not established a uniform technical infrastructure. The USPTO has introduced priority examination programs and fee waivers in response to COVID-19. The EPO has expanded its online oral proceedings. In contrast, India has opted for broader deadline suspensions instead of targeted acceleration programs.

While global patent offices have converged on digital hearings, India has depended significantly on judicial limitation orders rather than pursuing administrative reform. It is essential to evaluate India’s adjustments in the context of global practices. The USPTO have implemented targeted extensions, focusing on fast tracking examinations for COVID related technologies. The EPO has established systematic remote oral hearings, bolstered by a strong digital infrastructure. The JPO has maintained operations close to normal due to its prior digitization efforts. Conversely, India has relied heavily on Supreme Court orders instead of fostering administrative innovation. This distinction is crucial.

The reforms by the USPTO and EPO are designed to maintain examination speed, while India’s measures are focused on preserving procedural integrity. The pandemic has highlighted India’s digital shortcomings but has also offered a framework for modernization. A comparative analysis indicates that India needs to invest in examiner training, remote-access infrastructure, and integrated digital workflows to reach parity with global patent offices.

LESSONS FOR INDIAN PATENT SYSTEM

COVID-19 revealed inherent vulnerabilities like reliance on physical submissions, inconsistent digital infrastructure, and lack of established disaster-response protocols. It also hastened the process of modernization. Virtual hearings have become commonplace. Digital workflows expanded on a permanent basis. Applicants adjusted to electronic procedures that had previously encountered resistance.

The backlog continues to be significant, necessitating staffing reforms and the rationalization of workflows. Policy modifications must incorporate fixed digital standards, remote evidence protocols, and time-sensitive examination objectives. This period illustrated that patent filing and examination are susceptible to systemic disruptions in the absence of operational continuity strategies. The institutional lessons learned from the pandemic are multifaceted.

Firstly, patent administration must include resilience mechanisms that are independent of external judicial involvement. Secondly, the patent office requires comprehensive digital integration, which encompasses secure remote-access systems for examiners, real-time collaborative search tools, and standardized protocols for virtual hearings. Thirdly, there is a need to increase staffing levels to address the backlog. Fourthly, statutory deadlines must be recalibrated to provide flexible adjustments during systemic crises. Lastly, there must be an increase in data transparency. Applicants need public dashboards that display examination rates, pendency timelines, and digital hearing capacities to effectively plan their commercial strategies. These insights are steering patent administration towards a contemporary, distributed, technology-oriented framework.

CONCLUSION

The process of patent filing in India underwent significant reconfiguration due to the impact of COVID-19. Patent examinations were delayed, deadlines were put on hold, and IPO procedures transitioned to a mandatory digital format. Digital hearings became a standard practice, changing procedural expectations. The administration of intellectual property adapted swiftly. However, the ongoing backlog indicates a structural weakness. The future effectiveness of the patent system now relies on preserving the efficient elements introduced during the pandemic while reconstructing examination timelines. The aspects of patent filing, patent examination, the impact of COVID-19, IPO procedures, and digital hearings now establish the operational foundation of India’s patent infrastructure.