Interventionon Client-Patent Advisor Privilege at SCP/24

Madam Chair,

The India delegation reiteratesits stand on this issue of Client-Attorney Privilege as taken in the last SCP meetings.We also recall that neither Paris Convention nor TRIPS Agreement provide any such privilege. Further, this issue is of substantive natureand could be governed by the applicable national laws and thus, to be discontinued from the work of SCP.

Moreover, in our opinion, nothing is left to discuss on this issue in the SCP and we believe, many of the Delegates here would agree with this. 

As per Indian Patents Act, there is no provision on the client-attorney privilege in the Act. In India, Patent Agents need not be Lawyers or Advocates and persons who graduated in science orengineering can also practice before the Patent Office as patent agents after qualifying patentagent examination. Still further, the Indian Evidence Act only provides protection for lawyers or advocates from discovery proceedingsand patent agents, being persons of scientific or technical background, did not fall under such protection.

Besides, such privilege might be detrimental to patent system, since such disclosure may be helpfulto courts in finaldetermination of substantive issues of patent laws.Hence, it is not compatible in this forum from Indian perspective to have any attempts for cross-border harmonization of the issue. Thus, we have opposed and continue to oppose.

Followingthe sharing sessions&discussions on the issue in the last meetings, we express our concern over the manner in which the issue is progressing towards a soft law approach for harmonizing the issue in the SCP.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
________