Patent Examination in Nepal: What the DOI's Technical Committee Actually Checks
Patent examination in Nepal explained: how the DOI's technical committee reviews Schedule 1(a) applications, what the disclosure must show, and how amendments work.
Nepal examines patents through a mechanism few other offices use: after formality checks, the Department of Industry constitutes a technical committee — experts from government technical bodies, academia and research institutions — to read the application against its own disclosure.
What that committee looks for decides which applications grant, and how fast. This guide sets out patent examination in Nepal from the inside: the checks, the correspondence cycle, and the drafting choices that make the difference.
In short
Patent examination in Nepal runs on the papers at the Department of Industry: formality review of the Schedule 1(a) set, then substantive review by a technical committee drawn from bodies such as NAST and RECAST. The committee checks that the description fully discloses the process or method, that drawings and theory support it, that the applicant's right is documented, and that the invention is new against published prior art anywhere. Findings go to the applicant, who may amend and resubmit for re-examination before the final decision. Responding within the stated period is decisive — slow correspondence is the most common way filings lose a year.
Patent examination in Nepal: formality first, then the committee
Before substance, the Department checks the file itself: the Schedule 1(a) form carries the inventor's name, address and occupation — which the Act requires — and the application travels with a full description, drawings or maps where the subject matter needs them, the theory or formula where the invention rests on one, and the assignment evidence where the applicant is not the inventor. Foreign-language disclosures arrive with Nepali translations; foreign applicants add a notarised Power of Attorney.
Defects at this stage are cheap but slow: a missing occupation line or an unattached assignment costs a correspondence round-trip with the Department. The complete first filing is the cheapest speed available.
The technical committee's substantive review
The distinctive stage follows: the DOI constitutes a technical committee — experts drawn from government technical bodies, academia and recognised research institutions such as NAST and RECAST — to examine the application's documents against the disclosure. This is Nepal's substitute for the specialised examiner corps other offices maintain.
The committee's review is organised around a small set of questions, and applicants can predict most findings from them:
| Check | The question | What defeats the application |
|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of disclosure | Could a person in the field understand and reproduce it? | A description that withholds the operative method |
| Subject matter | Is it a process, method or theory-based invention (Section 2(a))? | A disclosure built around appearance — that is a design filing |
| Novelty | Is it new against what has been published anywhere? | Prior publication of the invention before filing |
| Applicant's right | Is the chain from inventor to applicant documented? | Missing assignment or employment basis |
| Support | Do drawings, maps and formulas carry the description? | Claims broader than what the disclosure teaches |
The amendment cycle: findings, response, re-examination
The committee's findings are communicated to the applicant, who may amend the documents in response; the committee can re-examine the amended documents before a final decision forms. The cycle can repeat — which is why elapsed time from filing to registration is typically a year or more, and longer for amended or technically complex applications.
Two disciplines keep the cycle short. Respond within the stated period — a delayed response is the quietest way to lose a year, and a lapsed application generally cannot be revived with novelty intact. And amend within the disclosure: amendments that add new matter cannot cure a specification that was thin on filing day — in patent practice more than anywhere, the first document is the one that counts.
Novelty against the world
Nepalese novelty is assessed against what is already known — including inventions published anywhere in the world — which puts the burden of the prior-art question on the applicant's preparation rather than the committee's library. A novelty search before filing is the cheapest insurance in the process: it finds the killing publication while abandoning is still free, and it sharpens the description toward what is genuinely new.
The Paris Convention priority right (12 months for patents) and PCT national-phase entry interact with this directly: the priority date is the date novelty is measured against, which is why the first-filed specification must carry the full invention.
Publication, objection and grant
Accepted patents publish in the Nepal Gazette under Section 7A — with exceptions for secret patents and matters against the national interest — and objections lie within 35 days of publication, fought on the file on grounds like prior publication or prior knowledge. On a favourable outcome the registration fee (NPR 7,000 in current practice, against the NPR 1,000 filing fee) is paid and the patent registers for its first 7-year term.
From grant, the calendar takes over: renewal is due within 35 days of each term expiry on Schedule 2(d), with a 6-month grace period carrying a NPR 1,000 fine, and annual maintenance inside each renewal term — NPR 5,000/year for years 7–14, NPR 7,500/year for years 14–21.
Drafting for this examiner
The committee reads documents, not product demos — so the specification does all the talking. The drafting habits that survive Nepalese examination: describe the process step by step in reproducible terms; attach the formula or theory explicitly where the invention rests on one; align every claim with something the description actually teaches; and answer every finding in writing, within time, with amendments rather than argument where amendment is possible. Applications drafted this way move through the committee's cycle in the minimum number of round-trips — which, in a system where elapsed time is measured in years, is the whole speed advantage available.
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.