When IPRP == IPER, OR, Should It Be?

 

The lucid the law, lucid its implementation. And minimal the terms, the better the understandings. In the end, if the Demand is not filed, then ISA/WO becomes IPRP published before the regional entry. And if the Demand is filed, then the IPRP becomes IPER == IPRP –> II, aka Chapter II, issued by the IPEA. Thus, would it be wrong to call IPER as mere IPRP (interchangeably) without using the term Chapter – II or I, and by mere adding/subtracting the term, IPRP with Demand? Thus, when the Demand is filed, it’s also IPRP, and when the Demand is not filed, then too it’s IPRP. Rather using the terms IPEA -> IPER -> IPRP-Chapter -  II; or ISA/WO -> IPRP - Chapter-I; would it be improper to use IPRP without Demand, or IPRP with Demand. In any case, the ISR/WO probably converts to IPRP without demand, or, IPER by IPEA is converted to IPRP-CH-II with Demand.

If I’m not wrong, then such terms explicitly are not included in the regulations and articles itself. Thus, like I discussed in my past blogs, how, the Claims, whether mentioned in Section 10 (4)(c) or (5), don’t precisely mention its structure; and even if the PCT Article 6 and Regulation mentions about the structure of Claims, whether Dependent etc.; then it also leaves the leverage to the local jurisdictions, making it less mandatory and more directory, Rule 6.3(c) (My Interpretation). And there’s a difference between these two words.

My blogs and books just explore the other possibilities. No more. No less. It may be challenged, it may be overlooked, or it may be implemented. But what’s already been written basically, that IPER by IPEA becomes IPRP-CH-II after 28 Months from the priority, when the IPEA examines the DEMAND filed by the Applicant; I just added that, what if merely we start writing IPRP + Demand; OR, IPRP Without Demand.

Means, there are researches been conducted that, should the tea be added before milk, or tea be added after milk, and which tastes better? Or, what resonates more with the consumer when it comes to branding? Like words suffixing ‘bolt’, ‘volt’ etc. resonates more for the Energy Drinks.

Thence, I just tried to make a case, wherein could the usage of less terms, minus verbose, and less terminologies, make the terms more understandable?

Just a thought!😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi