Secrecy Directions in Patent Law: A Comparative Analysis of India, USA, Europe, Japan, China

Sep 17, 2024 | Patent

1. INTRODUCTION
   • Overview of Patent Law and its importance

Patent law is a branch of intellectual property law that grants inventors exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited period, typically 20 years from the filing date of the patent application. The main objectives of patent law are to:

• Encourage Innovation: By providing inventors with exclusive rights, patent law incentivizes the development of new technologies, products, and processes. This exclusivity allows inventors to potentially recoup their investment and earn a profit from their invention.
• Disseminate Knowledge: In exchange for exclusive rights, inventors must disclose detailed information about their invention in the patent application. This disclosure enriches the public domain with technical knowledge, enabling others to learn from and build upon existing innovations.
• Promote Economic Growth: Patents stimulate economic growth by fostering a competitive environment where new and improved technologies can thrive. This leads to the creation of new industries and job opportunities.
• Legal Protection: Patent law provides a legal framework to protect inventors from unauthorized use, reproduction, or sale of their inventions, thus ensuring that their intellectual property is safeguarded.

• Importance of Secrecy Directions under Patent Law
  • Secrecy directions are special provisions within patent law designed to protect national security and other critical interests by restricting the disclosure, publication, and processing of certain patent applications. These directions are crucial for several reasons.
  • National Security Protection: Inventions that have military applications or strategic significance must be protected from unauthorized disclosure to prevent potential adversaries from gaining access to sensitive technologies. Secrecy directions ensure that such information remains confidential and secure.
  • Public Safety: Certain inventions may pose significant risks to public health and safety if misused. Secrecy directions help prevent the dissemination of information about hazardous technologies until they can be safely managed and controlled.
  • Economic and Competitive Advantage: Maintaining the secrecy of strategic innovations helps preserve a country’s competitive edge in critical industries. This protection can be vital for maintaining technological superiority and economic stability.
  • Compliance with International Obligations: Many countries have international agreements that require them to implement secrecy measures for specific types of technologies. Secrecy directions help ensure compliance with these obligations, fostering international cooperation and security.
  • Intellectual Property Security: Secrecy directions act as a deterrent against industrial espionage and unauthorized access to proprietary technologies. By controlling the disclosure of sensitive inventions, countries can better protect their intellectual property and economic interests.

• Definition of secrecy directions in patent law Secrecy directions in patent law refer to official orders issued by patent authorities or relevant government bodies to restrict the disclosure, publication, or processing of a patent application. These directions are typically imposed when an invention is deemed to have implications for national security or other critical interests, and the unrestricted dissemination of its details could potentially harm national interests or public safety.

2. HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT
   • Early Beginnings

The concept of secrecy in patent law emerged alongside the advent of modern patent systems. As industrialization accelerated in the 19th century, the potential for technological innovations to impact national security became increasingly evident. Governments began to recognize the need to control the dissemination of sensitive inventions that could have military or strategic applications.

• 19th and Early 20th Century
  • Industrial Revolution: The Industrial Revolution (late 18th to early 19th century) saw rapid technological advancements that significantly impacted national economies and defence capabilities. During this period, the importance of protecting strategic inventions became apparent, although formal secrecy provisions were not yet widespread.
  • World War I: World War I (1914-1918) marked a turning point in the understanding of technological superiority in warfare. Nations began implementing more structured approaches to protect sensitive inventions. For instance, the United Kingdom and other European countries introduced measures to prevent the disclosure of technologies critical to their war efforts.

• Mid-20th Century Developments
  • World War II: World War II (1939-1945) significantly influenced the development of secrecy provisions. The need to safeguard innovations in areas such as cryptography, radar, and nuclear technology led to stricter controls over patent disclosures. This period saw the formalization of secrecy measures to protect national security interests.
  • Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 (USA): In the United States, the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 was enacted in response to the critical need for protecting sensitive technological information. This act allowed the government to impose secrecy orders on patent applications deemed detrimental to national security if disclosed. This legislation marked a significant step in the formalization of secrecy measures in the patent system.
  • Cold War Era: The Cold War (1947-1991) heightened the need for secrecy in technological advancements. Both the United States and the Soviet Union implemented stringent controls to protect innovations related to defence, space exploration, and other strategic areas. Secrecy orders became a common practice to prevent sensitive information from reaching potential adversaries.

• Late 20th and Early 21st Century
  • Globalization and Technological Advancement: The late 20th century saw increased globalization and rapid technological progress. Countries recognized the need for international cooperation to ensure the protection of sensitive technologies across borders.
  • European Patent Convention (EPC): Established in 1973, the EPC included provisions for member states to impose secrecy orders on patent applications. This allowed European countries to coordinate their efforts in protecting sensitive technologies and maintaining national security.
  • Digital Age and Cyber security: The rise of the digital age and cyber security threats brought new challenges to the implementation of secrecy provisions. Governments needed to adapt their laws to address vulnerabilities associated with digital technologies and cyber warfare.
  • Strengthening of National Laws: Countries like China and Japan strengthened their patent laws to include more comprehensive secrecy provisions, reflecting the growing importance of technological protection in national security strategies.

• Modern Context and Challenges
  • Balancing Innovation and Security: Modern patent laws strive to balance the need to promote innovation with the necessity of protecting national security. This involves periodic reviews of secrecy orders and updating regulations to reflect new technological realities.
  • Harmonization Efforts: Efforts to harmonize secrecy provisions globally have been ongoing, with international treaties and agreements playing a key role. Organizations like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) facilitate discussions on best practices and harmonization.
  • Emerging Technologies: The emergence of new technologies such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum computing presents new challenges for secrecy provisions. Governments continue to evolve their laws to address these advancements.

3. SECRECY DIRECTIONS IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS
   • India

Legislation: Patents Act, 1970

• Procedure: When a patent application is filed, it is reviewed by the Indian Patent Office and the Ministry of Defence. If the invention is deemed to have potential implications for national security, the Controller General of Patents may issue a secrecy direction.
• Enforcement: The patent application process is halted, and the details of the invention are kept confidential. Inventors are prohibited from disclosing the invention to unauthorized persons or entities. Secrecy directions are periodically reviewed, and can be renewed or lifted based on the assessment of national security risks.
• Penalties: Violations of secrecy directions can result in fines, imprisonment, or both, as stipulated by the Patents Act.

• USA                         Legislation: Invention Secrecy Act of 1951
  • Procedure: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) forward certain patent applications to defence agencies for review. If an invention is deemed to threaten national security, a secrecy order is imposed.
  • Enforcement: The application is withheld from publication, and the processing is suspended. The applicant is notified of the secrecy order and must comply with restrictions on disclosure. Secrecy orders are reviewed annually and can be renewed or rescinded based on security assessments.
  • Penalties: Unauthorized disclosure can lead to significant fines, imprisonment, and the forfeiture of patent rights.
  • Notable Cases: Historical examples include innovations in cryptography and nuclear technology that were kept under secrecy orders during and after World War II.

• Europe

Legislation: European Patent Convention (EPC)

• Procedure: National patent offices in EPC member states review patent applications for security concerns. If a national security issue is identified, a secrecy order can be issued.
• Enforcement: The patent application is withheld from publication, and processing is suspended. Coordination among member states ensures that secrecy directions are consistently applied. Secrecy orders are reviewed periodically to determine if they should be maintained or lifted.
• Penalties: Violations can result in fines, imprisonment, or both, as per the national laws of the member state imposing the secrecy order.

• Japan Legislation: Japanese Patent Act
  • Procedure: Patent applications are screened by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) and relevant security agencies. If an invention poses a national security risk, the Commissioner of the JPO can issue a secrecy order.
  • Enforcement: The patent application is not published, and examination is suspended. Applicants are prohibited from disclosing the invention to unauthorized parties. Secrecy orders are reviewed periodically and can be extended or lifted based on national security evaluations.
  • Penalties: Violations of secrecy orders can result in substantial fines, imprisonment, or both.

• China Legislation: Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China
  • Procedure: The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and national security agencies review patent applications for sensitive information. If an invention is considered a threat to national security, a secrecy order is issued.
  • Enforcement: The patent application is withheld from publication, and processing is halted. Applicants are notified and must comply with non-disclosure requirements. Secrecy orders are periodically reviewed and can be renewed or rescinded based on security assessments.
  • Penalties: Unauthorized disclosure can lead to severe penalties, including fines, imprisonment, and the loss of patent rights.

4. KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF SECRECY DIRECTIONS

Secrecy directions are specialized legal provisions designed to protect sensitive inventions that may have implications for national security, public safety, or other critical interests. Here are the key characteristics that define secrecy directions in the context of patent law:

• Restriction on Disclosure
  • Confidentiality: Secrecy directions impose strict confidentiality on the details of the patent application. Inventors and applicants are prohibited from disclosing any information about the invention to unauthorized individuals or entities.
  • Controlled Access: Only specific, authorized government officials and security agencies can access the details of the invention. This ensures that sensitive information is tightly controlled and not exposed to potential threats.

• Prohibition on Publication
  • Non-Publication: Patent applications subject to secrecy directions are not published in the official patent gazette or made publicly accessible. This prevents the dissemination of sensitive information to the general public and potential adversaries.
  • Document Handling: All documents related to the patent application are handled with a high level of security to prevent unauthorized access and leaks.

• Suspension of Patent Processing
  • Processing Halt: The examination and grant process of the patent application is suspended while the secrecy order is in effect. This means that the application will not move forward through the usual patent office procedures.
  • Conditional Resumption: The processing of the patent application may resume only if the secrecy order is lifted or modified, allowing for limited disclosure under controlled conditions.

• Periodic Review and Duration
  • Regular Reviews: Secrecy orders are subject to periodic review by the issuing authority, typically annually. This ensures that the necessity of maintaining the secrecy order is regularly evaluated.
  • Adjustable Duration: The duration of secrecy orders is not fixed and can be extended or lifted based on the ongoing assessment of national security or public safety risks.
• Penalties for Violations
  • Legal Consequences: Violating a secrecy order can result in severe penalties, including fines, imprisonment, or both. The severity of the penalties underscores the importance of compliance with secrecy directions.
  • Enforcement Mechanisms: Governments have robust enforcement mechanisms in place to detect and prosecute violations, ensuring that the secrecy of sensitive inventions is maintained.

• National Security Considerations
  • Defence and Military Applications: Secrecy directions are often applied to inventions with potential military or defence applications. This includes technologies related to weapons, surveillance, encryption, and other strategic areas.
  • Critical Infrastructure: Inventions that could impact critical national infrastructure, such as energy, communications, or transportation systems, may also be subject to secrecy directions to prevent potential sabotage or exploitation.

• Balancing Innovation and Security
  • Innovation Encouragement: While secrecy directions restrict disclosure, they are designed to balance the need for innovation with national security concerns. Inventors are still encouraged to develop new technologies, knowing that their inventions can be protected if necessary.
  • Temporary Measures: Secrecy orders are generally viewed as temporary measures. The ultimate goal is to lift the secrecy order when it is safe to do so, allowing the inventor to benefit from their innovation while protecting national interests.

• International Coordination
  • Global Security: Secrecy directions are part of a broader effort to coordinate security measures internationally. Countries often work together to ensure that sensitive technologies are protected across borders, reflecting the global nature of modern security threats.
  • Treaty Obligations: Many secrecy directions are implemented in accordance with international treaties and agreements that require the protection of specific types of sensitive technologies.

5. IMPORTANCE AND RATIONALE BEHIND SECRECY DIRECTIONS.
   • Importance of Secrecy Directions
     • National Security Protection

1. Defence Technology: Secrecy directions safeguard sensitive inventions that have potential military applications, preventing adversaries from gaining access to advanced defence technologies.
2. Strategic Assets: Technologies related to national infrastructure, cyber security, and other critical areas are protected to maintain national security and prevent exploitation by hostile entities.
   • Public Safety
3. Hazardous Inventions: Some inventions may pose significant risks to public health and safety if their details are disclosed. Secrecy directions ensure such information is controlled and handled appropriately.
4. Preventing Misuse: Restricting access to sensitive technologies reduces the likelihood of their misuse in ways that could endanger public safety.
   • Economic and Competitive Advantage
5. Innovation Protection: Ensuring that proprietary and sensitive technological advancements are protected helps maintain a country’s competitive edge in global markets.
6. Intellectual Property Security: By keeping strategic inventions secret, countries can secure their investments in research and development, preventing economic espionage.
   • Regulatory Compliance:
7. Legal Frameworks: Compliance with national and international laws and regulations necessitates the protection of certain types of inventions. Secrecy directions help align patent processes with these legal requirements.
8. International Obligations: Countries may have treaties and agreements that require them to implement secrecy measures for certain types of technologies.
   • Rationale Behind Secrecy Directions
     • Preventing Technological Leaks

1. Controlled Dissemination: Secrecy directions ensure that sensitive information is only accessible to authorized personnel and entities, preventing leaks that could compromise national security.
2. Intellectual Property Theft: They act as a deterrent against industrial espionage and unauthorized access to proprietary technologies.
   • Strategic Security
3. Defence and Intelligence: Inventions that can enhance a country’s defence capabilities or intelligence operations need to be protected to maintain strategic advantages.
4. Cyber security: Protecting advancements in cyber security technologies helps shield national digital infrastructure from potential threats.
   • Economic Stability
5. Market Control: By controlling the dissemination of sensitive inventions, countries can influence markets and ensure economic stability, especially in sectors critical to national interests.
6. Innovation Incentives: Encouraging innovation by ensuring that inventors can work on sensitive technologies without fear of premature disclosure or exploitation.
   • Public Welfare
7. Health and Safety: Technologies that could be hazardous if misused are kept under wraps to ensure they are developed and deployed safely.
8. Environmental Protection: Inventions that might have significant environmental impacts are controlled to prevent misuse and ensure responsible development.
   • International Relations
9. Compliance with Global Norms: Secrecy directions help countries comply with international norms and treaties regarding the control of sensitive technologies.
10. Diplomatic Leverage: By maintaining control over strategic technologies, countries can negotiate and collaborate more effectively on the global stage.

6. CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS

While secrecy directions serve vital national security and public safety purposes, they also face several challenges and criticisms. These issues reflect the complex balance between protecting sensitive information and fostering innovation and transparency.

• Hindrance to Innovation
  • Restricted Collaboration: Secrecy orders can limit the ability of inventors to collaborate with other researchers and organizations. This can slow down the development of new technologies and hinder the sharing of knowledge.
  • Reduced Commercialization: The inability to disclose or market an invention can prevent inventors from commercializing their innovations, potentially reducing their financial incentives and slowing technological progress.

• Legal and Administrative Burdens
  • Complex Procedures: The process of issuing, maintaining, and reviewing secrecy orders can be administratively complex and resource-intensive for patent offices and security agencies.
  • Inconsistent Application: The criteria and procedures for imposing secrecy orders can vary between jurisdictions, leading to inconsistent application and potential legal uncertainties for inventors operating in multiple countries.

• Impact on Patent Rights
  • Delayed Patent Grant: Secrecy orders suspend the processing of patent applications, delaying the grant of patent rights. This can affect the inventor’s ability to protect their invention against unauthorized use.
  • Limited Legal Recourse: Inventors subject to secrecy orders may have limited legal recourse to challenge or appeal the order, potentially affecting their rights and interests.

• Economic Implications
  • Financial Losses: Inventors may face financial losses due to the inability to commercialize or license their inventions while a secrecy order is in effect. This can be particularly burdensome for small businesses and individual inventors.
  • Market Distortion: Secrecy orders can distort markets by preventing the introduction of potentially disruptive technologies, which can impact competition and economic growth.

• Transparency and Accountability
  • Lack of Transparency: The secrecy surrounding these orders can lead to a lack of transparency and accountability in the patent system. Stakeholders may not fully understand the criteria or rationale for imposing secrecy orders.
  • Potential for Abuse: There is a risk that secrecy orders could be used improperly to suppress information for reasons unrelated to national security or public safety, such as protecting economic interests or preventing public scrutiny.

• International Coordination and Compliance
  • Cross-Border Issues: As technologies and businesses operate globally, coordinating secrecy orders across different jurisdictions can be challenging. Inconsistent rules and enforcement mechanisms can complicate international collaboration and compliance.
  • Trade and Diplomatic Concerns: Secrecy orders may impact international trade and diplomatic relations, particularly if foreign entities are involved in the development or commercialization of the technology.

• Ethical and Social Considerations
  • Public Interest: There may be ethical concerns about withholding information that could benefit the public, such as medical or environmental technologies. Balancing the public interest with national security needs can be challenging.
  • Informed Consent: Inventors and stakeholders may not always be fully informed about the implications of secrecy orders, raising questions about informed consent and the fair treatment of inventors.

7. CASE STUDIES AND EXAMPLES
   • India: Missile Technology (2018-2020)

Invention: A new missile technology developed by Indian defence scientists.

Secrecy Directions Imposed: In 2018, the Controller of Patents, upon the Central Government’s recommendation, imposed secrecy directions on the patent application due to its potential impact on national defence.

Duration and Review: The secrecy directions were maintained for two years, with periodic reviews.

Revocation: In 2020, after reassessing the threat level, the secrecy directions were revoked as the invention was no longer considered a threat to national security.

Analysis

National Security: The secrecy directions successfully protected sensitive military technology during its critical development phase.

Innovation Impact: The restriction ensured that the missile technology remained confidential, preventing potential adversaries from gaining insights. However, it also delayed potential collaboration and further innovation until the directions were lifted.

Suggestions

Improved Review Mechanisms: Implement more frequent and detailed reviews to assess the necessity of ongoing secrecy directions.

Partial Disclosure: Allow controlled, partial disclosure to trusted collaborators under strict non-disclosure agreements to foster further development without compromising security.

• USA: Encryption Algorithm (2016-2021)

Invention: A new encryption algorithm developed by the National Security Agency (NSA).

Secrecy Directions Imposed: In 2016, a secrecy order was issued, restricting foreign filing and disclosure without written consent from the NSA.

Duration and Review: The secrecy order was reviewed annually and remained in place for five years.

Revocation: In 2021, the technology was declassified, and the secrecy order was lifted, allowing the algorithm to be disclosed and utilized publicly.

Analysis

National Security: The secrecy order protected a critical component of national cyber security, preventing potential adversaries from understanding or circumventing the encryption.

Innovation Impact: The prolonged secrecy order limited the algorithm’s application and development in the private sector, potentially delaying advancements in cyber security.

Suggestions

Enhanced Collaboration: Establish secure channels for collaboration with select private sector entities to expedite innovation while maintaining security.

Timely Declassification: Set clear criteria and timelines for declassification to balance national security needs with technological progress.

• UK: Radar Jamming System (2019-2022)

Invention: A new radar jamming system.

Secrecy Directions Imposed: In 2019, the UK Intellectual Property Office imposed secrecy restrictions to prevent the disclosure of sensitive national security information.

Duration and Review: The restrictions were reviewed periodically and remained in place for three years.

Revocation: In 2022, the invention was no longer deemed a threat, and the secrecy directions were lifted.

Analysis

National Security: The secrecy restrictions safeguarded a key defence technology, ensuring it did not fall into the hands of potential adversaries.

Innovation Impact: The restrictions limited broader research and development opportunities but ensured the technologies secure advancement within defence circles.

Suggestions

Strategic Partnerships: Form strategic partnerships with trusted defence contractors to continue development under secure conditions.

Flexible Secrecy Policies: Develop more flexible secrecy policies that allow for phased disclosure as the threat level diminishes.

• China: Missile Guidance System (2020-2023)

Invention: A new missile guidance system developed by a Chinese defence contractor.

Secrecy Directions Imposed: In 2020, the Chinese Patent Office imposed secrecy directions on the patent application to prevent the disclosure of sensitive national security information.

Duration and Review: The secrecy directions were in place for three years, with periodic reviews.

Revocation: In 2023, the technology was declassified, the restrictions were lifted, and the patent was granted.

Analysis

National Security: The secrecy directions effectively protected a crucial military technology during its sensitive development phase.

Innovation Impact: The restriction ensured that the missile guidance system remained confidential, preventing potential adversaries from accessing the technology. However, it also delayed broader innovation and commercial application until the directions were lifted.

Suggestions

Regular Reviews: Implement more frequent reviews to assess the ongoing necessity of secrecy directions and to potentially lift them sooner if the security threat diminishes.

Controlled Collaboration: Allow limited disclosure to trusted research institutions and defence contractors under strict non-disclosure agreements to promote further development while maintaining security.

• Japan: Encryption Algorithm (2018-2023)

Invention: A new encryption algorithm developed by the Ministry of Defence.

Secrecy Directions Imposed: In 2018, a secrecy order was issued, restricting any disclosure or foreign filing of the invention without government approval.

Duration and Review: The secrecy order was reviewed periodically and remained in effect for five years.

Revocation: In 2023, the technology was declassified, and the restrictions were removed.

Analysis

National Security: The secrecy order protected a critical component of Japan’s cyber security infrastructure, preventing potential adversaries from exploiting the encryption technology.

Innovation Impact: The prolonged secrecy restricted broader research and commercial development, but ensured the technologies secure advancement within government-controlled settings.

Suggestions

Secure Development Channels: Develop secure channels for collaboration with select private sector cyber security firms to expedite innovation while maintaining strict security controls.

Timely Declassification: Establish clear criteria and timelines for declassifying technologies to balance national security needs with the benefits of technological progress.

8. DETAILED ANALYSIS AND SUGGESTIONS
   • Analysis of Outcomes and Implications
     • National Security

1. Effectiveness: Secrecy directions have proven effective in protecting critical technologies from unauthorized disclosure, thereby maintaining national security.
2. Challenges: The primary challenge is balancing the need for security with the potential stifling of innovation and technological advancement.
   • Innovation
3. Initial Impact: Secrecy directions often hinder the immediate commercialization and broader development of technologies.
4. Long-term Effects: Once lifted, these directions can result in rapid advancements and commercialization as the technologies become available to the private sector and research communities.
   • Suggestions for Improvement
5. Periodic and Rigorous Review: Establish more frequent and detailed reviews of secrecy orders to ensure they remain necessary and justified. Use a multi-disciplinary approach involving security experts, industry professionals, and legal advisors.
6. Partial and Controlled Disclosure: Implement mechanisms for partial disclosure to trusted collaborators under strict non-disclosure agreements, facilitating further innovation without compromising security. Create secure environments for collaboration between government agencies and private entities.
   • Timely and Clear Declassification: Set clear criteria and timelines for the declassification of technologies to balance security needs with the benefits of technological advancement. Ensure transparency in the declassification process to build trust and encourage compliance.
   • Enhanced Collaboration Channels: Develop secure channels for collaboration with private sector entities to expedite innovation while maintaining necessary security measures. Foster public-private partnerships to leverage the strengths of both sectors in advancing technology securely.
   • Flexible Secrecy Policies: Create more flexible secrecy policies that allow for phased disclosure as the threat level diminishes. Tailor secrecy orders to the specific nature of the technology and its potential impact, rather than applying blanket restrictions.

9. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SECRECY PROVISIONS AND PRACTICES IN PATENT LAW             
   • Comparison of Secrecy Provisions and Practices
10. India
    1. Legal Framework: The Indian Patents Act, 1970 (Sections 35-37) allows the Controller of Patents to impose secrecy directions on inventions deemed prejudicial to national security.
    2. Duration and Review: Secrecy directions can be initially imposed for one year, with periodic reviews and possible extensions.
    3. Scope: Primarily used for defence-related technologies and innovations with potential national security implications.
11. USA
    1. Legal Framework: The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 empowers the Commissioner of Patents to impose secrecy orders on patent applications that may affect national security.
    2. Duration and Review: Secrecy orders are reviewed annually and can be renewed indefinitely if necessary.
    3. Scope: Broad application, including technologies developed by defence agencies and private entities working on government contracts.
12. Europe (UK)
    1. Legal Framework: The UK Patents Act 1977 (Sections 22-23) allows the UK Intellectual Property Office to impose secrecy directions on inventions related to defence or other sensitive areas.
    2. Duration and Review: Secrecy directions are reviewed periodically and can be maintained as long as necessary.
    3. Scope: Primarily used for defence and security-related technologies, including innovations by private and public sector entities.
13. China
    1. Legal Framework: The Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (Articles 18-19) grants the Chinese Patent Office the authority to impose secrecy orders on inventions related to national security.
    2. Duration and Review: Secrecy orders can be imposed for an initial period, subject to periodic review and renewal.
    3. Scope: Commonly applied to military technologies and other innovations with significant national security implications.
14. Japan
    1. Legal Framework: The Japanese Patent Act (Article 195) enables the Japanese Patent Office to impose secrecy orders on inventions considered vital to national security.
    2. Duration and Review: Secrecy orders are reviewed periodically and can be extended if necessary.
    3. Scope: Primarily applied to defence and cyber security technologies, particularly those developed by government agencies. 

• Identification of Similarities and Differences
  • Similarities

1. National Security Focus: All jurisdictions impose secrecy directions to protect national security, particularly for defence and military-related technologies.
2. Periodic Review: Secrecy orders are subject to periodic reviews to assess their necessity and effectiveness.
3. Government Authority: The power to impose secrecy directions lies with government agencies or patent offices in each jurisdiction.
4. Confidentiality Requirements: Secrecy orders restrict the disclosure, foreign filing, and publication of sensitive patent applications.
   • Differences
5. Duration and Renewal: The duration and renewal processes for secrecy orders vary, with some jurisdictions (like the USA) allowing indefinite renewals, while others have specific initial periods followed by reviews.
6. Scope and Application: The scope of technologies covered and the criteria for imposing secrecy orders can differ. For instance, the USA has a broad application including private sector innovations, whereas other jurisdictions may focus more narrowly on defence-related inventions.
7. Legal Frameworks: The specific legal provisions and mechanisms for imposing secrecy orders differ across jurisdictions, reflecting variations in national patent laws and security policies. 

• Assessment of Effectiveness and Challenges
  • India

1. Effectiveness: Secrecy directions effectively protect national defence technologies.
2. Challenges: The periodic review process can delay the commercialization of innovations, potentially hindering broader technological progress. 

• USA

1. Effectiveness: The Invention Secrecy Act is highly effective in safeguarding national security through robust annual review processes.
2. Challenges: Prolonged secrecy can stifle innovation and delay broader application and collaboration.
   • Europe (UK)
3. Effectiveness: The UK system is effective in protecting sensitive technologies.
4. Challenges: The periodic review process can create administrative burdens and may delay innovation.
   • China
5. Effectiveness: Secrecy orders effectively protect critical national security technologies.
6. Challenges: The lack of transparency and potential for overuse can stifle innovation and create uncertainties for inventors.
   • Japan
7. Effectiveness: The Japanese system safeguards national security, particularly in defence and cyber security.
8. Challenges: Prolonged secrecy can limit broader technological advancements and delay commercialization

• Challenges Common to All Jurisdictions
  • Innovation Stifling: Prolonged secrecy orders can hinder innovation by restricting collaboration and commercial application.
  • Administrative Burdens: The periodic review and renewal processes can be resource-intensive for patent offices and inventors.
  • Transparency Issues: The lack of transparency in the imposition and review of secrecy orders can lead to uncertainties and potential misuse.
  • International Coordination: Differences in secrecy provisions across jurisdictions can complicate international collaboration and compliance for multinational inventors and companies.

10.  WAY FORWARD: ENHANCING SECRECY DIRECTIONS IN PATENT LAW

• Regular and Rigorous Reviews
  • Implement Frequent Reviews: Increase the frequency of reviews for secrecy orders to ensure their continued relevance and necessity. This will help in timely lifting of unnecessary restrictions, fostering innovation.
  • Multi-disciplinary Approach: Involve security experts, industry professionals, and legal advisors in the review process to ensure a balanced assessment of security and innovation needs.

10.2.        Transparent and Accountable Processes

10.2.1.  Enhance Transparency: Improve transparency in the imposition and review of secrecy orders. Clear criteria and justifications for secrecy directions should be communicated to inventors to reduce uncertainties.

10.2.2.  Accountability Mechanisms: Establish accountability mechanisms to prevent misuse or overuse of secrecy orders, ensuring they are only applied when absolutely necessary.

10.3.        Controlled Disclosure Mechanism

10.3.1.  Partial and Controlled Disclosure: Develop mechanisms for partial disclosure to trusted collaborators under strict non-disclosure agreements. This can facilitate further innovation without compromising security.

10.3.2.  Secure Collaboration Channels: Create secure channels for collaboration between government agencies and private sector entities to expedite technological development while maintaining necessary security controls.

10.4.        Timely and Clear Declassification

10.4.1.  Set Clear Timelines: Establish clear timelines and criteria for declassifying technologies. This ensures that inventions are not unnecessarily held back from commercial application.

10.4.2.  Transparency in Declassification: Ensure the declassification process is transparent and predictable, fostering trust and encouraging compliance.

10.5.        Flexible Secrecy Policies

10.5.1.  Tailored Secrecy Orders: Develop more flexible secrecy policies that allow for phased disclosure based on the diminishing threat level. Tailor secrecy orders to the specific nature of the technology and its potential impact.

10.5.2.  Dynamic Policies: Adapt secrecy policies dynamically in response to changes in the technological and security landscape.

10.6.        Enhanced Collaboration and Information Sharing

10.6.1.  International Collaboration: Promote international collaboration and information sharing on best practices for handling secrecy directions. This can help harmonize approaches and facilitate compliance for multinational entities.

10.6.2.  Public-Private Partnerships: Foster public-private partnerships to leverage the strengths of both sectors in advancing technology securely and efficiently.

10.7.        Balancing Security and Innovation

10.7.1.  Balanced Approach: Strive for a balanced approach that protects national security without unduly stifling innovation. Consider the long-term benefits of technological advancement alongside immediate security concerns.

10.7.2.  Incentivize Innovation: Provide incentives for inventors and companies working on sensitive technologies to continue innovation within secure frameworks. This can include grants, tax incentives, and other support mechanisms.

11.  IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

11.1.        Policy Reforms: Governments should review and reform existing patent laws and regulations to incorporate the above recommendations, ensuring a balanced approach to secrecy directions.

11.2.        Capacity Building: Invest in training and capacity building for patent office staff, security experts, and legal advisors to handle the complexities of secrecy directions effectively.

11.3.        Stakeholder Engagement: Engage with stakeholders, including inventors, industry representatives, and security experts, to gather input and build consensus on the proposed reforms.

11.4.        Pilot Programs: Implement pilot programs to test new approaches to secrecy directions, such as controlled disclosure mechanisms and enhanced review processes, before wider adoption.

Monitoring and Evaluation: Establish robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks to assess the effectiveness of secrecy directions and make continuous improvements based on feedback and changing circumstances.

Author: Anshika Agarwal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra

Please contact us at info@origiin.com to know more about our services (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Contract, IP Licensing, M&A of companies)

Subscribe to YouTube Channel HERE

Join LinkedIn Group: Innovation & IPR

WhatsApp: +91 74838 06607 

Parallel Import and Patent Infringement

Sep 5, 2024 | Patent

Under Indian Patents Act, 1970 Section 107A (b), allows for parallel importation of patented products if they are sourced from a legally authorized seller, without constituting patent infringement. This provision reflects the Doctrine of Exhaustion, which aligns with the TRIPS agreement. The section has evolved over time i.e, initially in the 2002 amendment required that the source of the product to be authorized by the patentee, but in the 2005 amendment broadened this to include products from anyone authorized under the law, not necessarily the patentee.

Introduction

Judicial precedents on Section 107A (b) in India are sparse. There are two main interpretations, one suggests that “duly authorized under the law” refers to the exporting country’s laws, supporting international exhaustion, while another argues it should be limited to Indian law, protecting domestic patent rights.

In 2012 Customs Circular, the Indian government implied that “under the law” pertains to the exporting country’s regulations. A public interest litigation challenging this circular did not resolve these ambiguities. The case of Strix Limited v. Maharaja Appliances also failed to clarify the term “duly authorized under the law.”

However, during a 2011 WTO trade policy review, India confirmed that it follows international exhaustion principles, meaning that patented products can be imported from any source authorized by the law of the exporting country. This interpretation allows Indian companies to import products from countries where patents are not enforced, potentially raising concerns about compliance with international IP standards.

Article 6 of the TRIPS agreement allows member states to adopt international exhaustion of intellectual property rights in their own laws. Countries can define how this exhaustion applies domestically without breaching TRIPS principles. The exhaustion principle often supports health policies by making expensive lifesaving drugs more affordable through parallel imports. Thus, member states are encouraged to implement parallel import rules as flexibly as possible to improve access to essential medicines.

Parallel Import & Patent Infringement

Parallel import is that of the patented or marked goods are purchased in a foreign market and resold in the domestic market. Instead, active parallel imports occur when foreign licensees enter the market in competition with the holder of the patent or of the trade mark.

Before the Patent (Amendment) Act, 2002, the Indian Patent Act, 1970, didn’t address the concept of patent exhaustion. The Doha Declaration highlighted the need for international exhaustion to make medicines more affordable. The 2002 amendment introduced Section 107A (b), allowing parallel imports only if the product was bought from someone authorized by the patentee. This limited the scope of parallel imports and hindered access to cheaper medicines. For example, if Company XYZ buys a machine from India and tries to import it into Japan, it could be blocked if the Indian seller wasn’t authorized by the patentee, even though the product was originally sold at a lower price.

The 2005 amendment revised this by stating that imports from anyone legally allowed to sell or distribute the product are not infringing, even if they are not directly authorized by the patentee. This change removed barriers to parallel imports, aligning better with international exhaustion principles. The principle means that once a patented product is sold anywhere by the patentee or with their consent, their rights are exhausted, and they cannot control further sales or imports of that product. However, if the initial sale wasn’t authorized, subsequent sales may still infringe the patent.

Under WIPO, in economic terms, parallel imports represent cross-border arbitrage. IP owners often set different prices for the same product in various markets based on local factors like purchasing power. When a patented product is sold at a lower price in one market compared to another, third parties may be motivated to import it into the higher-priced market to exploit the price difference. However, several factors and regulations influence whether parallel imports occurs.

1. Under a national exhaustion regime, once a patented product is sold in a country (Country X), the patentee’s rights are exhausted in that country, preventing them from blocking resale or importation of that product within Country X. However, the patentee can still block imports from other countries (like Countries Y and Z) where the product was not sold.
2. In a regional exhaustion regime, the patentee’s rights are exhausted when the product is sold in any country within a defined regional market. This means that once a product is sold in one member country, it can be imported and sold in other member countries without infringing on the patent. For example, if Countries X, Y, and Z are part of a regional agreement, a sale in Country X would exhaust patent rights across all three countries, allowing imports from any of these countries. Conversely, a sale in a non-member country would not exhaust patent rights in the member countries, so the patentee could prevent imports into those countries.
3. Under the international exhaustion rule, a patent owner’s control over a patented product is exhausted once it is sold legally anywhere in the world. This means that in a country with international exhaustion, if a product is sold legally in any country, it can be imported into that country without infringing on the patent. For example, if Country X follows international exhaustion, then patented products sold legally in Countries Y or Z can be imported into Country X without any patent infringement, because the patent rights in Country X are already exhausted for products sold in those other countries.

Comparative Analysis

In Japan, the Tokyo High Court applied the international exhaustion rule in the 1995 case BBS Kraftfahrzeug Technik AG v. Kabushiki Kaisha Racimex Japan and Kabushiki Kaisha JapAuto Prods. This ruling overturned the earlier 1969 Osaka District Court case Brunswick, which had held that parallel imports were illegal if the goods were patented in Japan. However, in 1997, the Japanese Supreme Court did not adopt the international exhaustion principle. Instead, it ruled that a patent holder in Japan could not block the importation of the same product into Japan from another country unless it could prove that the gray market importation was contractually prohibited and there was evidence of such a restriction on the product.

In Brunswick Corp. v. Orion Kogyo, K. K., a 1969 Japanese case, the Osaka District Court addressed the issue of parallel importation of patented goods. The case involved an automatic bowling pin device first sold in Australia by a sublicensee of Brunswick, which held patents in both Australia and Japan. The defendant imported used devices from Australia into Japan and was sued by Brunswick for patent infringement. The court ruled against the defendant, upholding the principle of territoriality of patent rights as outlined in the Paris Convention. It concluded that while patent rights are exhausted in the country of the initial sale (Australia, in this case), this does not affect the enforceability of the patent in Japan. The court rejected the argument for extending international exhaustion to patents, emphasizing that patent rights are distinct and must be individually maintained and enforced in each country. Thus, even though Brunswick was compensated for the devices in Australia, it was entitled to enforce its Japanese patent and collect royalties on the imported goods. The court granted Brunswick’s request for an injunction and the disposal of the infringing devices.

In the E.U. is in force the European Union exhaustion principle. Goods patented (or marked) traded for the first time in the European Union or in the European Economic Area can be freely traded inside European Union (or European Economic Area). The patent or trade mark holder can, instead, opposite to parallel importations inside E.U. or E.E.A.

In the U.S., the doctrine of patent exhaustion is recognized, but the government has consistently opposed the principle of international exhaustion. During TRIPS negotiations, the U.S. argued against international exhaustion, particularly for patents and pharmaceuticals. The U.S. government believes that allowing international exhaustion could harm the research and development capabilities of companies by reducing their ability to control patent exploitation and pricing in different markets. The only exception in U.S. law to this stance is for trademarks, where gray market imports are allowed if the U.S. trademark holder is the same as or affiliated with the foreign trademark holder. This exception is based on the belief that trademark protection does not have the same impact on research incentives as patents do.

A study by NERA in 1999 found that the European Union’s exhaustion principle, which applies within the EU, did not significantly reduce price differences among EU countries. This study suggested that parallel imports from countries like the U.S. and Japan might lower company profits more than they reduce consumer prices.

In theory, international exhaustion could help eliminate market segmentation and lower prices for consumers. However, studies on parallel imports are often based on limited evidence and anecdotal data. Recently, there has been a shift toward restricting parallel imports, especially for drugs, to protect research and development. This shift may be influenced by economic challenges and a move towards protecting businesses and fostering innovation. Balancing the benefits of parallel imports (which reduce prices for consumers) with the need to incentivize innovation (by ensuring adequate returns for patent holders) is challenging. The key is to provide fair compensation to intellectual property holders while avoiding excessive market control.

The interaction between parallel importation and patent infringement involves intricate legal and economic issues. The international exhaustion principle supports market integration and benefits consumers by making IP-protected goods cheaper and more accessible. It also counters monopolistic practices by patent holders and their licensees, fostering competition and leading to lower prices. For consumers, parallel imports expand product availability, increase choices, and promote consumption, particularly benefiting those in developing markets with more affordable options.

Most developing countries follow global or international exhaustion principles, as highlighted by the NERA report. However, allowing parallel imports without adequate quality controls poses risks, such as product alterations or substandard goods.  To safeguard consumer interests, developing countries should implement quality control measures and learn from the practices of developed countries to mitigate these risks.

Conclusion

There is intersection between parallel imports and patent infringement is complex, reflecting on various nations intellectual property rights. India has a balance innovations and adoption of International exhaustion under Section 107A of Patents act, 1970. While international exhaustion fosters market integration and consumer benefits, it also presents challenges, including potential quality control issues and economic impacts on patent holders. Effective quality controls and informed policy adjustments can help mitigate risks while leveraging the advantages of parallel imports for broader market accessibility and competition.

Author: Yashaswini S, PES University

Please contact us at info@origiin.com to know more about our services (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Contract, IP Licensing, M&A of companies)

Subscribe to YouTube Channel HERE

Join LinkedIn Group: Innovation & IPR

WhatsApp: +91 74838 06607 

Patent Landscape Report: Augmented Reality Technology (AR)

Aug 29, 2024 | Patent

A.    Introduction

Augmented Reality Technology (AR) displays a transformative leap in the way of interaction with the digital and physical platforms. By overlaying the computer-generated images, sounds and sensory enhancements onto our everyday real surroundings, AR bridges the gap between the virtual and real by creating a mixed-reality experience thereby enhancing the user’s way of perceiving and interaction.

AR Technology integrates digital information with the user’s environment in the real-time. AR overlays digital content onto our physical world even through devices such as smartphones, tablets, AR glasses etc., unlike  Virtual Reality (VR) which immerses the users in a completely different kind of virtual world. The scope of AR extends across various domains like gaming, education, healthcare, manufacturing and navigation etc.

Key components of AR technology include:

• Sensors and Cameras, which captures the physical surroundings and tracks the user movements.
• Processors which handles the computational load which is required to integrate and display augmented content in the real-time world.
• Displays which projects the augmented content onto the user’s view, ranging from simple screens to the advanced displays.
• Software Algorithms which facilitates the interaction between the digital and physical realms through object recognition, tracking and the rendering techniques.

AR Technology has penetrated various sectors thereby offering new ways to enhance the user experiences. In healthcare, AR assists in medical training and complex operations while in retail, it enables virtual try-ons and interactive advertisements. In education, it brings subjects to life by using interactive learning modules whereas in the gaming industry, the success of games like Pokémon GO showcases AR’s potential to revolutionize entertainment.

The rapid growth of AR Technology is reflected in the increasing number of the filings of patents. Patents in this domain encompass hardware innovations, software advancements, user interface designs and specific application techniques. Leading technology companies such as Apple, Google, Microsoft and emerging startups are heavily investing in the AR-related R&D thereby resulting in a very competitive patent landscape.

This report delves into the patent landscape of AR technology, providing key insights into key players, technological trends and the competitive dynamics shaping the future of augmented reality. By analyzing patent filings and grant trends, it aims to offer a comprehensive view of the intellectual property landscape that is driving the AR industry forward.

• Objective of Patent Landscape

We, at Origiin, prepared this Patent Landscape Report for AR Technology to understand various trends with regard to patent activity in this space. We have analyzed the patents filed, published and granted between 2022 and 2024. The search strategy used to generate the data to prepare the report is based on a combination of predetermined International Patent Classification (IPC) codes, as well as specific keywords.

We observed that the companies based in the India, United States and World Intellectual Property Organization are the major contributors of patent filings in the area of AR Technology. The leading patent filing companies include the Chandigarh University , Chitkara University and RV University.

C.    Parameters used for Patent Landscape analysis

In this report, we studied the following parameters and trends:

1. Patenting Trends for the year 2022 to 2024
2. Distribution of Patents based on the Assignees
3. Jurisdiction based Global Patent Filing Trends
4. Technology classification based on IPC classification
5. Activities of Competitors based on area of Research (IPC)
6. Estimated top 10 industries and technology areas between 2022 and 2024
7. Estimated top 10 owners between 2022 and 2024
8. Estimated top 10 Assignee Countries between 2022 and 2024
9. Estimated top 10 priority countries between 2022 and 2024
10. Estimated top 10 publication countries between 2022 and 2024

D. Patent filing trend between years 2022 to 2024

Figure 1: Patent filing trend between the years 2022 to 2024

The Figure 1 depicts the distribution of patents for AR Technology between the years 2022 to 2024, including both applications filed and granted patents. The graph shows that highest number of applications were filed in 2022 with 26 patents followed by 2023 with 24 patents. However, the lowest number of patents were granted in the year 2023 with 03 patents compared to 2022 with 04 patents and 2024 with 07 patents. Overall, filings for AR Technology patent families is gradually increased in the time period between 2022 and 2024.

E. Distribution of Patents based on the Assignees

Figure 2:  Distribution of Patents based on the Assignees

As indicated in Figure 2, Chandigarh University is the key player with 03 patents along with Chitkara University and RV University each. The next key players are Beijing Zitiao Network Technology Company Ltd., Chitkara Innovation Incubator Foundation, Chunghwa Telecom Company Ltd., Image Derivative Inc, Mailam Engineering College, Meta Platforms Technology LLC and  Seb S.A who holds 02 patents each.

F. Jurisdiction based Global Patent Filing Trends

Figure 3: Distribution of Patent based on the jurisdiction

The Figure 3 shows the distribution of patents based on the jurisdiction. The maximum number of patents, i.e, 29, were filed in the IN (India) and rest of the patents were issued in the other jurisdictions, such as, United States (US) with 22 patents, World Intellectual Property Organization (WO) with 13 patents followed by European Patent Office (EP) with 10 patents and Taiwan (TW) with 10 patents, China (CN) with 09 patents,  Russia(RU) with 07 patents,  Turkey (TR) with 06, Japan (JP) with 04 patents and France (FR) with 03 patents.

G. Technology classification based on IPC classification

Figure 4: AR Technology Patent Distribution based on main IPC Code Classification

The Figure 4 indicates the patent distribution based on main IPC code. The top spot is occupied by the data processing systems or methods, specially adapted for administrative, commercial, financial, managerial, supervisory or forecasting purposes with 30 patents families. Other major players include Electric digital data processing and Image data processing or generation, in general with 28 patent families each followed by educational or demonstration appliances; appliances for teaching, or communicating with, the blind, deaf or mute; models; planetaria; globes; maps; diagrams with 11 patent families. Diagnosis: surgery: identification follows along with Computer systems based on specific computational models with 08 patents each while the next in line  i.e., Healthcare Informatics hold 07 patents and Optical elements, systems or apparatus hold 05 patents.  Image or video recognition or understanding and Transmission of digital information hold 04 patents each.

H. Activities of Competitors based on Area of Research (IPC)

Figure 5: Augmented Reality Technology (AR) Distribution of Patent based on Competitors and Area of Research (IPC)

The Figure 5 depicts the distribution of patents based on competitors and area of research (IPC). The top spot occupied by IPC G06T19/00  i.e, manipulating 3D models for images for computer graphics holds 24 patents. Other major players includes G06Q30/06 i.e, buying, selling or leasing transactions with 09 patent families and input arrangements or combined input and output arrangements for interaction between user and computer with 08 patent families. IPC G06Q30/02 for marketing with 06 patent families. Sound input: Sound output, using wireless devices, education, editing of 3D images and teaching not covered by other main groups of this subclass with 04  patents each. IPC A61B5/00 Measuring for diagnostic purposes holds 03 patents.

I.  Estimated top 10 Industries and Technology areas between 2022 and 2024

Figure 6: Augmented Reality Technology (AR) Distribution of Patent based on Industries & Technology.

The Figure 6 indicates major industries and technology areas between 2022 and 2024. Computers and Peripheral Equipment is the major industry in the field. Computer Programming, Consultancy and Related Activities follows next with 29 patents. The next in line is Medical and Dental Instruments and Supplies with 12 patents. The Manufacturing N.E.C Industry holds 11 patents while the Other General Purpose Machinery has 09 patents. The Communication Equipment has 08 patents followed by Optical Instruments and Photographic Equipment with 05 patents. Other Manufacturing and Specialised Construction Activities holds 03 patents each. The least in number is the Domestic Appliances with 02 patents.

J. Estimated top 10 Owners between 2022 and 2024

Figure 7: AR Technology Distribution of Patent based on Current Owner

As indicated in Figure 7, Chandigarh University is the major  player with 03 patents along with Chitkara University and RV University each. The next key players are Beijing Zitiao Network Technology Company Ltd., Chitkara Innovation Incubator Foundation, Chunghwa Telecom Company Ltd., Image Derivative Inc, Mailam Engineering College, Meta Platforms Technology LLC and  Seb S.A who holds 02 patents each.

K. Estimated top 10 Assignee Countries between 2022 and 2024

 Figure 8: Distribution of Patent based on Assignee Countries

 The Figure 8 indicates India (IN) is the key assignee country with 28 patents followed by United States (US) with 14 patents, China (CN) and Taiwan (TW) with 07 patents each, Russia (RU) and Turkey (TR) with 05 patents each, while France (FR) with 03 patents. The lowest include Turkcell Technology Arastirma ve Gelistirme A.S (TR), Israel (IL) and Italy (IT) with 01 patents each.

L. Estimated top 10 Priority Countries between 2022 and 2024

Figure 9: Distribution of Patent based on Priority Countries

As indicated in Figure 9, India (IN) is the priority country for the AR with 27 patent family data set. United States (US) is another priority country with 14 patents. Rest priority countries are China (CN) with 08 patents, Turkey (TR) with 06 patents, Taiwan (TW) with 04 patents and France (FR) with 03 patents. The lower half priority country include Germany (DE), Spain (ES), Italy (IT) and Japan (JP) with 01 patents each.

M. Estimated top 10 Publication Countries between 2022 and 2024

Figure 10: Augmented Reality Technology (AR) Distribution based on Publication Countries

The Figure 10 indicates that the maximum patents belongs to the inventors of India (IN) with 27 patents and rest patents are issued to the inventors of other countries, ie United States (US) with 18 patents, Taiwan (TW) with 08 patents, Russia (RU) with 07 patents, Turkey (TR) with 06 patents followed by European Patent Office (EP) with 04 patents, Germany (DE) and Japan (JP) with 02 patents each, and the least i.e, France (FR) and Netherlands (NL) with 01 patents each.

N. Analysis of ECG Suppliers

Analysis was performed in order to obtain the companies involved in Augmented Reality Technology. The list of companies involved in AR Technology comprises the companies from various parts of the world involved in AR production and the irrespective patents and publications. The companies have been mentioned in the analysis of the graphical representation of patent applications under each parameter used for patent landscape analysis.

Apart from the companies list, there are few universities involved in AR Technology (AR) production:

• Chandigarh University (Punjab)
• Chitkara University (Punjab)
• RV University (Bengaluru)
• Mailam Engineering College (Tamil Nadu)

O. Conclusion

Augmented Reality Technology (AR), one of the most popular industrial instruments widely used in gaming and entertainment, health care, retail and e-commerce, education and training, manufacturing and maintenance, real estate and architecture, navigation, tourism, advertising and marketing, military and defense and automotive industry etc., has opened up new dimensions and vistas for diagnosis on an industrial scale. The study indicates that the substantial number of patents is filed by inventors of the IN (India) and Chandigarh University (Punjab) being the major player. The study also shows that there are very less patents filed when it comes to manufacturing industries when compared to computers and peripheral equipment. This sector is of growing interest as the amount of patenting activity has increased. The data shows that there are maximum published patent families related to the AR Technology worldwide, of which 29 are from IN (India) applicants. Based on the list of top applicants, it is clear the leading patent filers include the Chandigarh University, Chitkara University and RV University.

Authors: Ansh Kanaujia & Meghana Chowdary, Alliance University

Please contact us at info@origiin.com to know more about our services (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Contract, IP Licensing, M&A of companies)

Subscribe to YouTube Channel HERE

Join LinkedIn Group: Innovation & IPR

WhatsApp: +91 74838 06607