Patent Novelty Search: Why Nepali Inventors Should Never File Blind
A patent novelty search before filing at the DOI saves a year of examination for an afternoon's work. Where to search, what counts as prior art, how to read it.
The invention works, the prototype is built, and the Schedule 1(a) form is tempting. But Nepal's patent examination is run by a technical committee that checks the disclosure against what is already known — and 'already known' includes everything published anywhere in the world.
Filing without a patent novelty search is the most expensive kind of optimism in Nepalese IP practice: a year of examination, fees paid, and a refusal that consumed novelty you cannot get back.
In short
A patent novelty search tests the invention against prior art before you file at the Department of Industry: earlier patents and published applications anywhere in the world, products already on sale, journal and catalogue disclosures, and the inventor's own publications. Nepal's examination — a technical committee convened by the DOI checking the specification against the disclosure — will find what a search would have found, a year later and at your expense. Search systematically, document what you find, and let the results shape the claims: a narrow, honest claim around the genuinely new step registers; a broad claim against known art does not.
What a patent novelty search must clear in Nepal
The PDTA protects inventions that are new and industrially applicable — processes, methods of manufacture or operation, and inventions based on a new theory or formula. Novelty is assessed against what is already known, and the knowledge pool is global: an invention disclosed in a foreign patent, a catalogue or a conference paper is not new in Nepal, no matter that it was never commercialised here.
There is no local-only carve-out. That single feature makes the search step non-optional: the examiner's knowledge pool is the world's, and so should the inventor's be.
What counts as prior art — the full list
Inventors habitually under-count prior art by thinking only of other patents. The pool is wider: published patent applications and granted patents anywhere; products already on sale in any market, including imports sitting on Nepalese shelves; journal articles, theses and conference papers; catalogues, brochures and websites; and the inventor's own earlier disclosures — the exhibition demo, the Facebook post, the pitch deck sent to investors.
The last category deserves emphasis because it is self-inflicted: an inventor who disclosed the invention before filing may have consumed their own novelty. Timing the first public disclosure after the filing date — or claiming Paris Convention priority within 12 months of a first filing abroad — is part of the same discipline.
| Source | What to look for |
|---|---|
| Patent databases | Granted patents and published applications, worldwide |
| Market | Products on sale, including imported goods in Nepalese shops |
| Technical literature | Journals, theses, conference papers in the field |
| Commercial material | Catalogues, websites, trade-fair material |
| Your own conduct | Exhibitions, social posts, investor decks predating filing |
Where and how to search
Start with the international patent databases hosted by WIPO, searching keywords, classification codes and applicant names — the same invention is described differently by different filers, so run several keyword sets. Then search the commercial side: e-commerce listings, Indian and Chinese marketplaces, and local distributors, because a product on sale anywhere is prior art everywhere.
Document the search: databases used, queries run, dates, and the closest documents found. That file does double duty — it shapes the specification, and it answers the examiner faster if prior art surfaces during examination.
Search the patent record
Keyword and classification searches across international databases; capture the closest five documents with dates.
Search the market
Check whether the invention — or something functionally identical — is already sold or catalogued anywhere, including Nepal's own shops.
Shape the claims
Draft the specification around the genuinely new step the search confirms is free — and file before any public disclosure.
What the search saves you — concretely
The Nepalese journey runs on the Schedule 1(a) application, examination by a DOI technical committee with experts from bodies such as NAST and RECAST, Gazette publication with a 35-day objection window, and registration — typically a year or more elapsed. Fees run NPR 1,000 to file and NPR 7,000 to register in current practice, with annual maintenance once granted.
A refusal at the technical-committee stage costs all of that time and the fees paid — and because the application's publication is prior art against a refiling, the loss is not just procedural. A search that finds a killing document costs an afternoon; examination finding the same document costs a year.
When the search finds bad news
A close prior-art hit is information, not a verdict. The options in order of cost: redesign the invention around the known art and patent the improvement; narrow the claim to the unobvious step the earlier document misses; or take the trade-secret route instead — keep the process confidential, since a patent that cannot clear novelty was never available. Improvements to existing machines and processes are a normal, patentable outcome of exactly this exercise.
What is not an option is filing the broad original claim and hoping. Nepal's examination may be measured, but it is not decorative.
Want this handled for your brand?
IP Watch monitors new trademark publications in Nepal and alerts you to potentially conflicting marks — with the context needed to review them.
This article is general information, not legal advice.