Image generated by ChatGPT-5
On the 4th of September, 2025, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) released the updated Roll of Scientific Advisers on the IPIndia website. (See here). In April, 2025, Advika discussed the release of the public notice inviting applications to update the roll of Scientific Advisors, maintained as per Rule 103 of the Patents Rules, 2003. This roll has to be updated every year.
This roll is not just an administrative list but also an institutional mechanism which has been envisioned under Section 115 of the Patents Act, 1970, read with Rule 103 (mentioned above). The object of the provision is to provide the Courts and the patent office access to ‘technical expertise’ beyond the general domain of interpreting scientific issues by the adjudicatory body. The latest list has been arranged alphabetically and is now in the public domain.
Why Does This Matter?
On paper, this update of the list may seem just a routine compliance update. But diving deeper, one may find an effort to ‘plug the gap’.
What is this gap? India’s IP Courts have grappled with the issue of experts and have faced an “expertise gap”. Technical questions are very common in IP disputes. Judges and IP lawyers, even the most brilliant of them, are not trained scientists. Scientific Advisers are meant to plug this gap. (Intellectual Property Appellate Board tried to bridge this gap by providing for Technical Members on the IPAB Bench. However, since 2021, IPAB has ceased to exist (See here)).
Previously, Advika, in her post linked above, has gone in depth exploring details of the statutory roll of the Scientific advisors, and the call for applications by the CGPDTM.
Apart from the CGPDTM’s website, the roll was also shared on LinkedIn by Prof. Unnat P Pandit, in a polite, almost ceremonial post. The post notes, “The office shall be privileged to get your support in advancing the growth of IP in India.” This could signify, along with gratitude for those empanelled, a hope that the advisors shall actively assist the robustness of the IP adjudication in India.
Exploration of the Roll of Scientific Advisers: Diving Deeper
The entire list has been arranged alphabetically. There are mainly 4 Groups of Scientific Advisers.
Group 1 covers experts in Biotechnology, Biochemistry, Microbiology & Food Technology,
Group 2 covers experts in Chemistry & Allied Sciences,
Group 3 covers experts in Mechanical & Allied Subjects,
Group 4 covers experts in Electrical, Electronics & Related Subjects.
Nearly all the advisors have a doctoral degree (there are few who are pursuing their doctoral degree). This emphasizes the stress on research credentials over industry-only profiles.
One aspect was that the majority of advisors hold M.Sc. & PhD combinations, along with combinations such as M.Pharm + PhD. This could be consistent with the pharma-driven IP litigation landscape in India. On the other hand, very few B.Tech/M.Tech/BE profiles appear compared to science/chemistry, which might be indicative of the fact that there are fewer disputes in mechanical/electrical compared to pharma/chemistry. Only one scientific advisor holds an LL.B. degree in addition to a technical degree. Few advisors have foreign qualifications and fellowships, one being a Chevening Fellow.
The advisors are appointed from all over the nation, but most scientific advisors are located in Mumbai, New Delhi, and Bengaluru. I could find only one advisor appointed from Kolkata. But the representation is not concentrated in a few metros only. There are advisors from Ahmedabad, Gujarat, Punjab, Telangana, Chandigarh, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Notably, there was no presence from Odisha, Bihar, or the Northeast.
The professionals were mostly from mid-career with experience ranging from 15 to 25 years, but both early career (5-10 years) and senior experts (30+ years) do feature in the list. As the list doesn’t specify the gender of the experts, based on the names, the roll appears to be a little male-dominated. Roughly 15-20% of the advisors appear to be women (example Dr. Arti Bartwal, Dr. Meera Sharma, Dr. Poonam Singh, Dr. Tejal Gandhi, Dr. Nilani Packianathan, Neetha Rajesh, etc).
How does the Indian IP Courts function with Scientific Advisors?
India has four (4) Intellectual Property Divisions in the State High Courts (Delhi, Madras, Calcutta and Shimla). The Delhi IPD rules speak of a panel of legal experts, hot-tubbing and confidentiality clubs (See the rules here and my earlier blogpost discussing it here).
Rule 13 of the Patent Suit Rules of the Delhi High Court also has the provision for a panel of scientific advisors to be periodically reviewed, to assist judges in resolving patent cases. These scientific advisors may include professionals such as scientists, economists, academics, accountants, legal experts, patent agents with specialised knowledge, and officers from the Indian Patent Office (See here).
The Madras IPD rules do not talk about expert panels or hot-tubbing (expert engagement technique where multiple experts interact with each other in the presence of the counsels and the Bench), but have experimented with confidentiality clubs through a Registrar-based appointment system (See here).
Rule 22 of the Calcutta High Court IPD Rules mentions ‘independent expert’ to be appointed to, “(obtain information) on specific points and/of questions to be formulated by (the IPD)”. (See here) The rules talk about maintaining an independent list that could be done by IPD on its own motion.
Frequently, we have seen some of the IPDs and the Supreme Court itself appointing amici as independent experts to the IP matters (See here, here, and latest, here). On the flipside, the IPDs are a little sporadic when it comes to the role of experts and engaging them independently or concurrently. The judges in different IPDs are not very constant at appointing Scientific Advisors/Experts. They sometimes, on the other hand, appoint Amici (I do a deep exploration of this issue here).
With so many lists, IP adjudication seems to be weaving a confusing web of tales for experts across the IP Courts.
Moreover, on the point of confusion, it is important to note that Section 115 does speak about defraying the remuneration of the Advisors by the Parliament of India. But the Courts provide a different approach and often, the appointed scientific advisor’s cost is shared by the parties, when not appointed from the roll (See here).
The Madras High Court in 2020 (See here) very conclusively determined when and how a scientific advisor could be appointed. In this case, a Scientific Adviser was appointed during the disposal of the interim injunction. Although this aspect was highly contested, the Court decided to hold the interim injunction until the Report by the Scientific Adviser is filed. Thus, this case is quite impactful in elucidating that, despite abject denial from the defendants, the Courts went ahead with the appointment of the Advisers.
Understanding Appointment of Scientific Advisors
The Delhi IPD had appointed an independent scientific advisor through another independent court-appointed expert (double experts: See here). The Director of IIT Delhi was asked to appoint and prepare a consolidated reference for a Scientific Advisor. This led to the appointment of a Scientific Advisor and party expert Dr. Alan Whitton. The cost of the scientific advisor was to be borne by both parties equally. Interestingly, two tiers of confidentiality clubs were formed in this matter, which is still pending. In another matter, the same bench, Saurabh Bannerjee J, noted the inclusion of Scientific Advisers in confidentiality clubs (See here).
But does that mean defendants cannot appoint their own scientific advisors or experts? They very well can. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (See here) or Section 39 of the new Act, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (See here) allows the parties to appoint their own experts, but subject to judicial discretion. Since scientific advisors provide “expertise” to the adjudication, they have been considered as a category of experts in IP adjudication, mostly as “court-appointed experts”.
Recently, Mr. Pravin Anand, Managing Partner, Anand and Anand mentions in a recent FICCI–ICRIER Conference on SEPs that the, “(Judicial Approach needs) Recognition of SEPs as a special class of cases, faster trials, and greater technical expertise in courts to ensure robust outcomes.” Although he did not directly mention experts, it has been accepted that scientific advisors or experts have become important in highly technical matters like the Standard Essential Patent (SEP) litigation in the IPD benches.
A Missed Opportunity?
Here is the irony; while the United Kingdom (UK makes a distinction between Scientific Experts and Experts, see here), Australia and the new Unified Patent Court (UPC) are experimenting with expert testimony in such forms such as “hot-tubbing”, usage of technical judges in the Bench, issuing of “joint statements”, using “exclusive-eyes-only” or “confidentiality clubs”, India’s statutory toll for appointment of independent, court appointed expertise are sitting relatively quietly in the background.
The UPC has its technically qualified judges (seventy-one (71) currently appointed TQJs) from six core domains, i.e., biotechnology, chemistry & pharmaceutics, electricity, mechanical engineering, physics and some overlapping subjects such as physics and electricity, etc. The professional backgrounds of the TQJ are patent attorneys (private practice, e.g. Cohausz & Florack, Modiano & Partners, Bird & Bird alumni), in-house counsel (Lundbeck, CSL Behring, Nokia, Airbus, Philip Morris, 3M, AGFA), Judges (German Federal Patent Court, Swedish Patent and Market Court, Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court, French INPI commissions, Dutch courts) and Patent office examiners (EPO, German PTO, French INPI, Austrian Patent Office, Dutch Patent Office). The representation is cross-national, with representation from Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Belgium. The UK has a limited presence. (See here for a list of TQJ and here for the analysis). The UPC rules also provide for the appointment of separate Court Experts in cases and maintaining a list in that regard (See Article 57 of the UPC Agreement here).
Japan IP Court, the Tokyo Court has a very interesting expert roll system in place. The system of technical advisors in Japan, established under Articles 92-2 to 92-7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (amended in 2003 and implemented in 2004) (See translated procedure rules here). These advisors are experts in various scientific and technological fields, including university professors, researchers from public and private institutions, and patent attorneys. Their primary role is to assist judges by offering neutral, clear, and precise explanations of technical issues, thereby enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of judicial proceedings. Technical advisors are appointed for two-year terms as part-time court officials. (See here) There is another form of advisors, the Judicial research officials, who are full-time court employees. They are assigned specifically to intellectual property cases and are posted to the Intellectual Property High Court, the Tokyo District Court, and the Osaka District Court. These officials possess expertise in fields like machinery, chemicals, and electronics. They conduct technical research as directed by the court on matters involving patents, utility models, and other intellectual property rights. They are authorised to question parties during oral proceedings with the presiding judge’s approval. Unlike technical advisors, who are involved only in cases to which they are specifically assigned, judicial research officials participate in all intellectual property cases where technical matters are in dispute, including those concerning patent and utility model rights (See here).
The Indian IPDs may pick up these international practices in the coming days. There are comprehensive outreach programs from India. On June 25, 2024, Mr. Justice Manmohan, Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi, visited the Tokyo IP High Court, together with Mr. Pravin Anand (See here). Satish Chandra Sharma J, Supreme Court of India, and Amit Bansal J, Delhi High Court, attended the WIPO IP Judges Forum 2024 (See here). The previous WIPO IP Judges forums have been attended by Pratibha Singh J, Manmohan Singh J, Dinesh Mehta J (Rajasthan High Court), Gautam Patel J (Retired), etc (See here). Justice Soumen Sen (erstwhile Acting Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court, now Chief Justice, Meghalaya High Court) recently attended the WIPO National Judicial Colloquium on Intellectual Property Adjudication in the Philippines this August 2025 (See here).
Why, then, does this matter? Every major patent dispute in India over the last two decades has involved questions of science so ingrained in the question of law, such as in the exploration of questions of infringement, validity, compulsory licensing, evergreening, SEP litigation, that it is too late to grab the microphone and ask, “Are Scientific Advisers that important in IP?”. Well, Madam, it is. There is an urgent need for an institutionally trusted, transparent and credible mechanism which can translate the science, albeit ‘neutrally’. It is yet to be seen whether the roll sets the stone for this path.
Although the CGPDTM roll does not mention any “foreign scientific advisors” but, both foreign experts (such as Sir Robin Jacob, former judge in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales and Professor of Intellectual Property, UCL, see here) and foreign Scientific Advisers (See here) have been engaged in Indian IP Courts to unravel IP issues.
Looking Ahead
The updated roll is out now. But the real question is how will it be used? For now, we convey our best wishes to the advisors who have been empanelled. But the next big development to watch out for is the usage of the roll’s publication by the IPDs and the Courts and whether this contributes to the expert based IP jurisprudence in India.
P.S. The Roll publishes direct phone numbers and emails of the scientific advisors. This ensures accessibility but raises privacy concerns. Internationally, the expert lists are often anonymized until appointment to the Bench.