TMIntroduction
The Indian Patent Office has released the Draft Manual of Patent Office Practice & Procedure, Version 4.0 (2026) for stakeholder consideration. The Draft Manual is intended to replace the existing Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure, Version 3.0 (2019) and reflects the significant changes that have taken place in Indian patent practice during the intervening years.
Official IP India – Patent Office Manuals
The revision was perhaps overdue. Since the 2019 Manual, Indian patent practice has undergone substantial changes through amendments to the Patents Rules, particularly the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024, changes in the institutional framework following the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, increasing reliance on electronic processing, and a growing body of judicial decisions from the Supreme Court and High Courts.
The Draft Manual itself acknowledges these developments. It explains that the Patent Office has undergone significant automation and electronic transformation and that the revision has been undertaken in view of amendments to the Rules, re-engineering of patent procedures and increased automation. Importantly, it also clarifies that the Manual is intended as a practical guide and does not have the force of law.
The Draft therefore represents more than an administrative update. It provides an opportunity to examine whether Indian patent prosecution practice has evolved sufficiently to meet the needs of today's applicants, patent professionals, technology companies, research institutions and international associates.
This article considers the principal changes and, more importantly, some areas where further clarification could make the Manual more useful in day-to-day patent prosecution.
From Version 3.0 to Version 4.0
The 2019 Manual was prepared in an environment materially different from the present one. Since then, several important procedural changes have been introduced.
The 2026 Draft continues the broad architecture of the earlier Manual but updates it to reflect current statutory provisions, amended Rules, electronic workflows and judicial developments.
One of the most visible structural changes is the creation of a separate Chapter dealing with pre-grant opposition. The 2026 Draft places examination and grant in Chapter 9 and pre-grant opposition in Chapter 9A, followed by post-grant opposition in Chapter 10.
This is a sensible structural development. Pre-grant opposition has become an increasingly significant component of Indian patent practice, and its procedural treatment warrants separate attention.
The most significant practical changes
1. The Request for Examination period has changed
One of the most consequential changes for applicants and patent practitioners is the reduction in the period for filing a Request for Examination.
For applications governed by the 2024 amendments, the Draft Manual reflects a 31-month period from the filing or priority date, whichever is earlier. It also expressly preserves the earlier 48-month period for applications filed before commencement of the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024.
This distinction is particularly important for patent portfolio managers and foreign associates handling large Indian portfolios.
A docketing system that simply applies a 31-month deadline to every application, or continues to apply 48 months indiscriminately, can create serious procedural risks.
The Draft Manual's consolidated timeline is therefore useful, although practitioners would benefit from additional worked examples explaining how the transitional rule should be applied in unusual situations.
2. FER compliance has become significantly more time-sensitive
The period for putting an application in order for grant has also changed.
The Draft Manual records six months from the date of issuance of the first statement of objections/FER for complying with the requirements imposed by the Patent Office. It further explains the extension mechanism under amended Rule 138.
This represents a major practical change from the older prosecution framework.
For applicants, the consequence is clear: preparation of FER responses can no longer be treated as a process that can comfortably be deferred for several months.
For foreign associates, the change makes timely instructions from overseas applicants even more important. A delay in obtaining technical instructions, claim amendments or supporting evidence can rapidly consume the available prosecution period.
3. Rule 138 has assumed greater practical importance
The amended Rule 138 framework is another important feature reflected in the Draft Manual.
The Draft explains that the Controller may extend the time prescribed for performing an act or condone delay, subject to the statutory framework, for a maximum period of six months through Form 4.
This is potentially beneficial to applicants because it introduces greater flexibility into the procedural framework.
At the same time, the Manual should ideally distinguish between:
- a statutory deadline;
- a period that can be extended as of right;
- a period that may be extended at the Controller's discretion; and
- a period for which condonation is available only upon satisfaction of specified conditions.
A practical manual should not merely state the maximum extension available. It should explain the nature and limits of the Controller's discretion.
4. Form 3 and Section 8 practice has been substantially revised
The 2024 Rules significantly changed the manner in which information concerning corresponding foreign applications is handled.
The Draft Manual reflects the new Rule 12 framework, including the requirement to furnish updated information concerning corresponding foreign applications within the revised timelines.
The consolidated timeline records, inter alia, a three-month period following issuance of the first statement of objections for certain updated information and a two-month period for responding to specified communications from the Controller concerning foreign examination information.
This is an important improvement over the older framework because it reduces the continuing burden of repeatedly updating Form 3 merely because a foreign prosecution event occurs.
However, the practical application of Section 8 remains an area where greater guidance would be valuable.
For example, the Manual could provide practical examples dealing with:
- applications filed in multiple jurisdictions;
- changes in foreign application status;
- abandoned or refused foreign applications;
- applications where examination has not yet commenced;
- availability of information through public databases;
- situations where foreign prosecution information is available but not readily accessible to the Indian applicant.
Such examples would substantially reduce uncertainty in practice.
5. The Manual has incorporated important recent jurisprudence
One of the strongest features of the Draft Manual is its attempt to incorporate post-2019 judicial developments.
This is particularly visible in the treatment of divisional applications, opposition proceedings, hearings and examination.
For example, the Draft Manual refers to the Delhi High Court's decision in Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents, decided in 2023, while dealing with divisional applications.
The inclusion of recent jurisprudence is important because patent prosecution in India increasingly develops through the interaction of the Patents Act, Rules, Patent Office practice and judicial decisions.
6. Pre-grant opposition receives greater prominence
The creation of Chapter 9A is particularly significant.
The Draft Manual separately deals with:
- filing of a pre-grant opposition;
- consideration of the representation;
- notice to the applicant;
- applicant's reply and evidence;
- hearing;
- decision by the Controller.
The timeline table provides two months for the applicant's reply and evidence following notice and states that the Controller should ordinarily decide the matter within one month after completion of proceedings.
The separate chapter should improve accessibility for practitioners and applicants.
However, one question deserves further clarification: how should the statutory hearing under Section 14 interact with a pending pre-grant opposition?
The Manual would benefit from expressly stating that consideration of a pre-grant opposition does not dispense with the applicant's right to address objections raised in the examination proceedings.
7. The Draft reflects the post-IPAB appellate environment
The 2019 Manual was prepared when the Intellectual Property Appellate Board still formed part of the Indian IP landscape.
The situation has since changed substantially.
With the transfer of appellate jurisdiction to High Courts, patent prosecution now operates within a considerably stronger judicial-review environment.
The 2026 Draft reflects this post-IPAB framework and incorporates more recent High Court decisions.
This is particularly relevant to the way Controllers approach:
- examination objections;
- hearings;
- natural justice;
- reasoned orders;
- opposition proceedings;
- amendments; and
- refusal orders.
The increasing importance of judicial review makes the quality of the examination record more important than ever.
8. Hearing practice deserves particular attention
For practitioners, one of the most important aspects of any Patent Office Manual is not simply what happens during examination but how the applicant is given an opportunity to respond.
The Draft Manual incorporates recent jurisprudence concerning hearings and written submissions.
This is a welcome development.
Nevertheless, the Manual could go further by expressly addressing a recurring practical concern: the introduction of new objections or new prior-art material at the hearing stage. A hearing should ordinarily provide an opportunity to respond to objections already communicated to the applicant. If a materially new objection emerges, procedural fairness would generally require that the applicant be given a meaningful opportunity to address it.
A useful addition to the Manual would therefore be a clear procedural protocol stating that, where a materially new ground arises, the applicant should ordinarily be given an opportunity to respond before an adverse order is passed.
This would reduce avoidable litigation and improve the quality of prosecution records.
9. The Draft recognises India's continuing digital transformation
The Patent Office has moved considerably toward electronic processing, online filing and digital communication.
The Draft Manual reflects this transformation and describes the use of electronic filing, digital signatures/e-sign mechanisms, online payments and electronic processing.
This is a major positive development.
But digitisation creates a corresponding procedural question:
What happens when the electronic system fails at a critical deadline?
The Manual would be considerably stronger if it contained a dedicated protocol for:
- portal outages;
- failed uploads;
- payment failures;
- system-generated acknowledgements not being received;
- technical errors occurring on the last day;
- emergency filing arrangements;
- restoration of filing rights after demonstrable system failure.
In a digitally dependent patent system, a robust business-continuity mechanism is as important as the e-filing system itself.
10. ST.26 is an important technical update
The Draft Manual also reflects the transition from the older sequence-listing framework to WIPO ST.26.
This is particularly relevant to biotechnology and life-sciences applicants and their foreign associates.
The Draft recognises the ST.26 regime and provides transitional treatment for applications depending on when they were filed.
This is a good example of why periodic revision of the Manual is necessary: technical standards used in international patent filing can change independently of the substantive patent law.
11. Working statements and Form 27 have changed
The working-statement regime has also evolved.
The Draft Manual reflects the amended framework under which Form 27 is to be filed for each period of three financial years, rather than following the older annual reporting model.
This is another example where the 2026 Manual is significantly more aligned with current practice than the 2019 version.
The change is particularly relevant to patent portfolio managers because working-statement compliance must now be integrated into long-term portfolio administration rather than treated as an annual filing exercise.
12. Jan Vishwas and the changing penalty framework
The Draft Manual also incorporates the consequences of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023.
This is important because the compliance architecture surrounding patent law has evolved from a predominantly offence-and-penalty model toward a framework involving administrative adjudication and monetary penalties in specified circumstances.
The inclusion of this material brings the Manual closer to the current statutory environment.
The missing dimension: AI and the Patent Office
Perhaps the most important question for a Manual being prepared in 2026 is not what it contains, but what it does not yet contain.
Artificial intelligence has already begun to affect virtually every stage of patent practice.
AI can now assist with:
- invention disclosure analysis;
- prior-art searching;
- claim drafting;
- claim comparison;
- office-action analysis;
- patent landscaping;
- translation;
- technical summarisation;
- prosecution analytics; and
- portfolio management.
Yet the Draft Manual does not appear to provide a comprehensive framework dealing with AI as a tool used in patent prosecution or examination.
This is a significant opportunity for improvement. The issue should be distinguished from AI-related inventions themselves. There are at least three separate questions:
First: AI as the claimed technology
The invention may itself involve machine learning, neural networks, generative AI or another computational technique.
Here, the existing framework concerning patentable subject matter, inventive step, sufficiency and computer-related inventions continues to apply.
Second: AI-assisted invention development
An inventor may use AI as a tool during research and development.
The Manual could clarify that the use of an AI tool does not by itself determine inventorship. What matters is the legally relevant human contribution to the conception of the invention.
Third: AI used by patent applicants or examiners
This is an entirely different issue.
If an applicant or patent agent uses AI to identify prior art, prepare a draft or analyse an FER, the ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the submission must remain with the applicant and authorised professional.
Similarly, if the Patent Office uses AI-assisted tools for prior-art searching or examination, appropriate safeguards should exist concerning:
- accuracy;
- verification;
- confidentiality;
- data security;
- explainability;
- human oversight; and
- reliance on AI-generated results.
An AI-generated citation should never become a substitute for a verified patent document or other reliable prior-art source.
The Patent Office has an opportunity to address these issues before AI-assisted prosecution becomes too deeply embedded in practice to be governed effectively.
Towards a more stakeholder-oriented Manual
The 2026 Draft is a substantial improvement over the 2019 framework in terms of updating the law, incorporating recent jurisprudence and reflecting procedural modernization.
But the next generation of the Manual could go further.
A truly practitioner-oriented Manual should not merely answer:
"What does the Rule say?"
It should also answer:
"How should this Rule operate in a real prosecution matter?"
That distinction matters.
For example, a foreign associate does not simply need to know that a particular Form must be filed within a specified period. The associate also needs to know:
- when the period starts;
- what event triggers it;
- what documents are required;
- whether the deadline can be extended;
- which Form should be used;
- what happens if the electronic system fails;
- whether the Controller has discretion;
- what evidence should accompany the request; and
- what happens after the request is filed.
Practical examples, flowcharts and decision trees could therefore make the Manual considerably more useful.
Conclusion
The Draft Manual of Patent Office Practice & Procedure, Version 4.0 (2026) represents an important step in bringing Indian patent prosecution guidance into the post-2024 environment.
Its principal strengths include the integration of the 2024 procedural amendments, revised prosecution timelines, updated Form 3/Section 8 practice, the revised Rule 138 framework, a dedicated chapter on pre-grant opposition, ST.26-related practice, updated working-statement requirements and incorporation of significant post-2019 judicial decisions.
The Draft also correctly recognises that the Patent Office has become increasingly automated and electronically driven.
At the same time, a Manual intended to guide Indian patent practice in 2026 should perhaps go one step further.
The next generation of patent administration will not be defined only by shorter timelines and electronic filing. It will increasingly involve AI-assisted searching and examination, complex technology, cross-border prosecution, digital evidence, remote hearings and data-driven patent portfolios.
The opportunity presented by this consultation is therefore broader than updating a manual.
It is an opportunity to build a patent prosecution framework that is predictable for applicants, transparent in its reasoning, efficient for the Patent Office, fair in its procedures and ready for the technologies that will shape the next generation of innovation.
The Draft Manual itself expressly invites stakeholder inputs and states that it will evolve in response to judicial interpretation, statutory amendments and stakeholder contributions.
For patent practitioners, this is therefore an important consultation, not merely because the Manual is being revised, but because the practice of patent prosecution itself is changing.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The law and applicable procedures may change, and readers should seek professional advice based on their specific circumstances.