By Jigyasa Pareek

The absence of a codified ethical framework for patent agents in India has been a long-standing anomaly. Unlike professions such as Advocates and Chartered Accountants that are governed by detailed statutory codes delineating permissible conduct and prescribing consequences for professional lapses, patent agents have operated without any formally articulated standards of ethics or discipline. There is presently no framework defined for dealing with misconduct by patent agents. While the Patents Act and Rules empower the Controller to disqualify a patent agent for professional misconduct they do not explicitly define misconduct and negligence.

This regulatory vacuum was brought into focus by the Delhi High Court’s decision in Sourav Choudhury vs Union of India [2024:DHC:4946], which arose from serious allegations of negligence and professional misconduct by a patent agent. The Court underscored the urgent need for a structured framework to govern the professional conduct of patent agents and trademark agents.

In response, on November 3, 2025, the Ministry of Commerce ((Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade) released a set of draft amendments to the Patents Rules, 2003 proposing the introduction of a detailed Code of Conduct for patent agents. These draft Rules will be taken into consideration after the expiry of thirty days from the date of the notification. This initiative marks the first attempt to introduce explicit professional standards, ethical obligations, and disciplinary procedures for patent agents in India.

The draft amendment proposes the introduction of the Sixth Schedule with the title “The Code of Conduct for Patent Agents, 2025”, which sets out a comprehensive ethical and professional framework for patent agents in India. The Schedule lays down the standards of conduct, duties, prohibitions, and professional responsibilities expected of patent agents while interacting with clients, the Patent Office, and fellow professionals. Complementing the Sixth Schedule, the newly proposed Rules 119A to 119I establish a formal mechanism for filing complaints, holding inquiries, and imposing penalties in cases of misconduct.

The Code of Conduct requires the patent agents to act with integrity, fairness, and diligence. Agents are expected to issue a clear engagement letter that defines the precise scope of services they undertake for a client, act with reasonable care and due diligence, maintain relevant knowledge and skills in patent practice, ensure compliance with applicable legal requirements, and refrain from engaging in any unethical conduct such as making false, misleading, ambiguous, inaccurate, or fraudulent statements or claims.

The key duties and responsibilities of a patent agent stipulated in the draft Sixth Schedule are as follows:

• Maintain direct supervision over staff including clerks and paralegals. The patent agent is fully responsible for all the services rendered.
• Discharge their duties with due diligence.
• Maintain adequate records of client communication.
• Track the progress of matters and report the same to the client in a timely manner.
• Provide copies of all communications issued by the Patent office and assist the client in understanding and responding to the same timely.
• Maintain client confidentiality.
• Act only on client instructions, except in good faith and in client interest.
• Disclose any conflicts of interest at the earliest opportunity.
• Make best effort to prevent the client from resorting to unfair practices.
• To not behave in a discourteous manner with the patent officers.
• To not obstruct or prejudice the implementation of the patent laws and administrative orders.
• To not to conceal facts.
• To not manipulate the client identity or impersonate the client.
• To not present himself as the applicant or the inventor or the opponent.
• To abide by statutory timelines.
• Not to provide forged or fabricated documents to a client or the Patent Office.
• Not to misappropriate or embezzle the sum received from a client in fiduciary capacity.
• Not to permit any non-agent to appear or conduct any proceeding.
• Not to influence the decision of a pending proceeding by colluding with any patent officer. Private unofficial communications with any official are prohibited.
• Not to give false assurances regarding grant or refusal of an application or claim undue influence over officials.
• Not to mislead clients about the patentability of their inventions, the procedural steps involved, or the potential outcomes for the purpose of securing their engagement.
• Not to withhold client files after the client directs the agent to withdraw his representation.

Notably, the draft applies the Bar Council of India Rules on advertising and solicitation, including Rule 36, mutatis mutandis to patent agents.

Further, the draft Schedule provides that an agent can withdraw their representation only in cases of non-payment of professional charges by the client within the stipulated time, inability to obtain instructions from the client despite exercising reasonable diligence, voluntary retirement from practice, or where the client’s conduct is dishonourable or in bad faith. Even in these circumstances, the agent must give the client a written notice of at least thirty days before withdrawing from the matter, ensuring that the client has a fair opportunity to make alternate arrangements.

In addition to duties toward clients and general prohibitions, the Sixth Schedule also outlines how patent agents must conduct themselves before the Patent Office. Agents are required to stay informed about the latest amendments to patent laws, rules, and procedures, as ignorance of the law cannot be used as a defence. All filings, applications, and correspondence submitted to the Patent Office must meet the applicable legal and procedural standards and must be accurate, complete, and timely. Any statement or document containing false or misleading information, negligent representations, or omissions that may create a misleading impression is treated as misconduct, although the draft allows agents to rectify inadvertent errors once discovered without facing disciplinary action.

The Sixth Schedule also recognises duties owed to fellow professionals. Patent agents must treat other agents and practitioners with respect, avoid disparaging remarks or unsubstantiated comparisons, and refrain from poaching clients through unethical practices or inducements. Their professional services and reputation must not be used to facilitate unauthorised practice of law, and agents are expected to uphold the dignity and credibility of the profession in all interactions.

The draft Rules also introduce a comprehensive disciplinary architecture. These reforms can be grouped into five parts.

1. Definitions

The new insertions in Rule 2 of the Patents Rules: “Code of Conduct” under Rule 2(cb), “Disciplinary Committee” under Rule 2(cc), and “Officer” under Rule 2(da), lay the definitional foundation for the later provisions. The Code of Conduct, as stated, will be published and updated by the Controller in the Sixth Schedule, creating a living framework that can evolve with professional standards.

2. Rule 119A: Misconduct by Patent Agent

Rule 119A imposes a direct obligation on every patent agent who appears before the Controller or any officer appointed under Section 73 to abide by the Code of Conduct. Any deviation from the Sixth Schedule will be treated as “misconduct”. The Controller is also empowered to publish updates relating to the Code in the Official Journal, ensuring transparency and public awareness.

3. Rules 119B, 119C, 119G, 119H and 119I: Complaint Mechanism and Procedure

Rule 119B operationalises the complaint process by allowing “any aggrieved person” to file a complaint of misconduct electronically in the newly introduced Form 34. The complaint must be filed within six months from the date on which the complainant became aware of the misconduct.

Rule 119C sets out the procedure for dealing with complaints. The Controller must first refer the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee for a preliminary assessment. If the Committee finds merit in the complaint and if the Controller is of the opinion that an inquiry is warranted, the Controller will issue a notice to the agent requiring a response accompanied by evidence within one month. If no response is received, the Disciplinary Committee may proceed ex parte on the basis of available material. After considering the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee, the Controller shall pass an order. The order shall be uploaded on the official website of IP India (as per Rule 119E).

If the Committee finds no merit in the complaint, it shall submit a report to the Controller to that effect and recommend the dismissal of the complaint.

If the patent agent can demonstrate with reliable and verifiable evidence that they acted in good faith or exercised reasonable due diligence, they may not be deemed guilty of misconduct. The Disciplinary Committee may at any stage recommend terminating or dropping the proceedings for just and sufficient cause recorded in writing to the Controller for the Controller to take an appropriate decision.

Rule 119C also recognises the Controller’s suo motu power to direct the Disciplinary Committee to initiate the proceedings where sufficient evidence warrants an inquiry.

Hearings may be conducted physically, virtually, or in hybrid form, enabling procedural flexibility. Although all communication shall be transmitted through electronic means only (as per Rule 119H). The proceedings shall be completed within three months from the date of commencement of inquiry by Disciplinary Committee for adjudication of the matter. An extension of up to one month can be granted to the agent upon showing reasonable cause and filing a petition under Rule 138 with the prescribed fee (as per Rule 119I). The proceedings shall be kept confidential (as per Rule 119G).

4. Rules 119D and 119E: Constitution of Disciplinary Committee and its Staff

Rules 119D and 119E lay out the institutional structure that will support the disciplinary system. Rule 119D provides for the constitution of a Disciplinary Committee by the Controller. The Committee will consist of a Presiding Officer not below the rank of Joint Controller, two senior Patent Office officials not below the rank of Deputy Controller, and two practising patent agents with at least twenty years of experience before the Patent Office. A strict prohibition on conflicts of interest ensures impartiality, and the Controller is vested with the flexibility to constitute more than one committee if workload or circumstances require it.

Rule 119E empowers the Controller to assign officers and staff to assist the Disciplinary Committee in administering the Code of Conduct.

5. 119F: Penalties

This Rule establishes the range of penalties that the Controller may impose after considering the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee. The Controller is authorised to issue a warning, record a formal censure, or remove the agent’s name from the Register of patent agents under Section 130(1)(ii) of the Patents Act.