In a first, DPIIT constituted committee deregisters patent agent over alleged misconduct

Notably, Chaklan since 2019 charged Chaudhary Rs 10,000 for “novelty search”, Rs 35,000 as “professional charges” for preparing and filing the application, and Rs 6,000 including official fees to get an “expedited examination” for a sewing machine’s patent. However, the application was “deemed abandoned” because Chaklan failed to inform Chaudhary about the issuance of the first examination report (FER).

The applicant later in 2023 filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court for the restoration of the patent application. The court directed Chaklan to file an affidavit explaining the position leading up to the abandonment of the patent application and directed the government to constitute an ad-hoc committee to look into the aspect of the complaints of misconduct against various patent and trademark agents.

In response to a query by The Indian Express, Chaklan termed that order “harsh and disproportional” and that it was discouraging for many patent agents, particularly solo practitioners.

Mistake unintentional, says patent agent

As per the order, Chaklan told the committee that his mistake was not intentional and that he was the only patent practitioner in his team and that he did not receive mentorship when he started practising. A government official aware of the development said that the ad-hoc committee has a number of such cases of misconduct, including against large legal firms, which are also pending but the patent office is yet to take action against them.

Moreover, the committee found that Chaklan had filed over 100 applications and 60 per cent of those were abandoned or withdrawn, and some were granted. “The case raises significant questions pertaining to the fiduciary duty owed by the patent agent to his client, accountability, and ethical conduct, and this order endeavours to resolve the issues in accordance with the Patents Act, 1970, keeping in view the principles of natural justice,” the committee observed.

“I am happy that required flexibilities in patent procedure have been incorporated vide amendment of rule 138; however, no emphasis given. This was not the first incident of its type; however, authorities found it most appropriate to pursue. People may know the reason. In this case, authorities were inclined toward setting an example,” Chaklan said.

Chaklan further said his “evidence affidavit dated 11.11.2024 was not even acknowledged in the order”; whereas, affidavits by the opposite party were “taken on record” even after final hearing and that his application for cross-examination was also rejected.

“Ad-hoc committee report has some incorrect facts. Recently, I came to know that Mr. Chaudhary filed a response to FER on 2.5.24; which indicates that he was aware of the outcome; however, the same was reserved then and passed on 4.7.2024. I may prefer legal remedies available to me and have full faith in the Judiciary,” he said.

While hearing this case in July last year, the Delhi High Court had asked the CGPDTM to put out a “draft code of conduct” to regulate patent and trade mark agents on its website within two months for stakeholder consultation.

“The Code of Conduct be then, thereafter, be notified within a period of 6 months from now i.e., latest by 31st December, 2024,” the court said.

Most importantly the court further asked the patent office to put out a framework for dealing with complaints against Trademark Agents and Patent Agents before December 31, 2024.

“Until then if any complaint is filed against any Trademark or Patent Agent before the office of the CGPDTM the same shall be considered and decided by ad-hoc Committee consisting of at least two officials from the trademark/patent office and one senior IP practitioner with at least 15 years of practise as also registered as a Patent/ Trademark Agent. The ad-hoc Committee be notified within two months,” the court said in July last year.