Nepal's Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act 1965 says the Department of Industry must determine whether an invention is “new and useful to the general public.” The Act does not define prior art or state a separate inventive-step test. A careful novelty review must therefore separate the statutory wording from broader international search practice.
Key takeaways
- Sec. 5 uses the words “new and useful to the general public.”
- The Act does not define novelty, prior art, inventive step or a disclosure grace period.
- An earlier document matters only after its date, public availability and technical teaching are understood.
- Claims, descriptions and drawings must be read together; titles alone prove little.
- A WIPO search report or written opinion can inform analysis but does not decide a Nepal application.
- Nepal is outside the PCT, so an international publication does not become a Nepal filing by itself.
- Control disclosure, keep dated records and obtain advice before launch.
What does Nepal's Act actually require?
Sec. 5(1) directs the Department to investigate whether the invention described in the application is new and useful to the general public. Sec. 5(2) allows the Department to seek expert advice while conducting that work.
Those are the load-bearing words. The statute does not supply a detailed novelty definition or reproduce the vocabulary used in modern international patent-search reports. A Nepal article should not silently convert foreign examination standards into statutory text.
What does “new” mean in a practical review?
A practical review asks whether earlier technical material discloses the features the applicant wants to protect. The comparison must be specific. “Solar dryer” as a shared label is not the same as disclosure of the same airflow path, heat exchanger and control arrangement.
Start with the proposed claims, break each claim into required features, and map every earlier reference against them. If a feature is only inferred, translated ambiguously or taken from a different embodiment, record that uncertainty instead of marking a simple match.
Is novelty the same as usefulness?
No. Sec. 5 joins “new” and “useful,” but they ask different things. An old machine can still be useful, and a newly described arrangement may have no credible public use.
The application should explain both the technical distinction and the function it performs. A marketing claim that a device is “revolutionary” answers neither question. The what-can-be-patented guide explains the full statutory starting point.
Does Nepal's Act require an inventive step?
The Act contains no separate “inventive step” wording. International reports commonly assess novelty and inventive step as distinct questions, but a writer should not attribute both tests to Nepal's Sec. 5.
That does not make obvious technical differences automatically safe. The Department conducts an investigation and may use expert advice. Describe international concepts as analytical context and seek application-specific advice about the Department's current approach.
What can count as earlier technical evidence?
Potential evidence includes patent publications, journal papers, manuals, catalogues, standards, product pages, videos and documented public use. Whether a source matters depends on when it became available, what it actually teaches and whether the document is authentic and complete.
An undated screenshot, a private notebook and a later recollection do not carry the same evidential value as a dated publication. Preserve the source, publication number, URL, access date, language and relevant passages. The patent-search guide explains how to record sources without overstating Nepal coverage.
Why should disclosure be controlled before filing?
Publishing technical detail before filing can create evidence against a later claim of newness. Nepal's Act does not state a general disclosure grace period, so do not promise that an inventor can launch first and repair novelty later.
Use confidentiality arrangements with employees, manufacturers, investors and testing partners, while limiting disclosure to what the recipient needs. If disclosure already happened, preserve exactly what was shared, to whom, on what date and under what duty.
Does first-to-file settle the novelty question?
No. Filing early and being new are related but different. A first-to-file position can matter between applicants, while earlier public technical material can still affect the application itself.
Record the filing and any claimed priority date accurately. Nepal is a Paris Convention member, so a qualifying foreign application may support a priority claim, but the facts and documents must be reviewed. Read WIPO's Paris Convention overview for treaty context.
What does a WIPO written opinion show?
In a PCT matter, an international search report and written opinion identify cited documents and give a preliminary view under the PCT framework. Codes and claim-by-claim findings must be read with the cited documents, search report and application.
A query for a particular WO publication, such as WO2021142452, should lead to the complete WIPO record rather than a detached snippet. Use WIPO PATENTSCOPE to inspect the publication, dates, family data and available international-phase documents.
Nepal is outside the PCT. A written opinion about novelty is useful research evidence, not a Nepal registration, refusal or binding decision by the Department of Industry.
How should claims be compared with a reference?
| Step | Question | Record |
|---|---|---|
| Parse the claim | Which features are required? | One row per feature |
| Read the reference | Where is each feature disclosed? | Paragraph, figure or claim |
| Check the date | Was it available before the relevant date? | Publication evidence |
| Test completeness | Are all required features in the relied-on teaching? | Match, absent or uncertain |
| Review context | Is the passage being read consistently? | Limitations and assumptions |
Do not assemble a novelty conclusion from unrelated fragments without explaining the legal basis for doing so. A claim chart should expose gaps rather than hide them. The patent-protection guide explains why claim wording defines the right sought.
How do language and classification affect searching?
Technical concepts may appear under older terms, translations, abbreviations or industry vocabulary. Search the function and component relationships, not only the product name. Patent classifications can reveal documents that a keyword search misses, while applicant and inventor variants can uncover related families.
When a close document is not in a language the reviewer reads, obtain a reliable translation before drawing a legal conclusion. Machine translation can identify candidates, but small words describing position, sequence or dependency may change the technical teaching. Record which text was machine-translated and which passage received human review.
How should a novelty search be run?
- Freeze disclosure. Keep technical details confidential while the position is assessed.
- Describe the invention. Record the problem, components, relationships and alternatives.
- Draft search concepts. Use functions, synonyms, classifications and applicant names.
- Collect complete sources. Save documents, dates, numbers and translations.
- Group patent families. Avoid treating related publications as unrelated inventions.
- Build claim charts. Map each proposed feature against the closest evidence.
- Document limitations. State missing databases, language constraints and uncertain dates.
- Decide the next step. Revise, test, file, preserve as know-how or stop.
A search cannot guarantee the Department's decision. It reduces avoidable uncertainty and improves the application record. IP Sewa's patent registration service can help connect the search findings to a national filing.
What must a Nepal application explain?
Sec. 4 requires the application to include particulars of the invention, maps and drawings, and the applicant's claimed title where the invention was made by someone else. The technical disclosure should support the scope later expressed in the claims.
Confirm current forms and document practice with the Department of Industry. Where a representative acts, retain the authority or power of attorney in the file; do not turn that practice point into a claim that every applicant must appoint a local representative.
Plan the search and drafting work separately from official filing steps. Complexity, drawings, translation and examination responses can change the work involved, so use the patent cost guide for budgeting principles rather than relying on a copied figure. Shorter procedural questions are also collected on the IP Sewa FAQ page.
What happens after the Department investigates?
If satisfied after the Sec. 5 investigation, the Department registers the patent and issues the registration certificate under Sec. 7. Publication under Sec. 7A(1) is in the Nepal Gazette after registration, unless secrecy is required in the national interest.
The objection provision is often misstated. Sec. 7A(3) allows an objection within 35 days from seeing or copying the patent under Sec. 7A(2), not a generic 35-day period running from publication. The application-process guide maps the statutory order.
How long does the resulting patent last?
Sec. 8 gives an initial seven-year term from registration. Sec. 23B allows two more seven-year renewal terms, producing a maximum of 21 years if renewal requirements are met.
Novelty is assessed before registration, while renewal preserves an existing registration. They are separate tasks. See the patent-renewal guide for the ordinary and late windows.
Common mistakes
- Calling a title a disclosure. Read the full document and drawings.
- Ignoring dates. A technically close later document does not establish earlier availability.
- Combining standards. Do not quote PCT vocabulary as Sec. 5 wording.
- Assuming a grace period. The Act states no general one.
- Treating a search as a decision. The Department decides the Nepal application.
- Confusing publication routes. Patents go to the Nepal Gazette, not the trademark Bulletin dataset.
What would a Nepal example look like?
This is an illustration, not a real case. A team develops a grain dryer with a sensor-controlled airflow arrangement. A search finds earlier solar dryers and separate moisture sensors, but the team has not yet established what one complete earlier source teaches.
The team preserves the references, charts the proposed claims and records uncertainty instead of announcing novelty. It then decides with its adviser whether the disclosed combination supports a Nepal application, a narrower claim or confidential further development.
In short
For Nepal, begin with Sec. 5: new and useful to the general public. Search broadly, compare technically, verify dates and public availability, and label international opinions as context. Control disclosure and let the actual application record—not a slogan—drive the filing decision.
People also search for
- How is a patent registered in Nepal?
- What cannot be patented in Nepal?
- Does Nepal have utility models?
- Patent or industrial design—which applies?
- How is a Nepal patent enforced?
Need to assess an invention against identified documents? Contact IP Sewa with the technical description, dates and complete references.
Comments (0)
Leave a comment
Replying to — cancel