The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and Nepal: Navigating Direct National Filings

The PCT gap, precisely

The PCT lets applicants file one international application and preserve rights in 150+ contracting states, deferring national-phase costs by up to 30 months. Nepal is not a contracting state. A PCT application designating Nepal designates nothing; there is no national phase to enter, no 30-month window, no WIPO relay.

The 12-month bridge that does work: the Paris Convention. An application filed in Nepal within 12 months of the first filing (anywhere) claims that first date as its priority date. For PCT-route applicants, the practical consequence is that the priority clock is shorter than the PCT national-phase mindset assumes — 12 months from first filing, not 30.

• No PCT national phase for Nepal — direct filing only
• Priority bridge: 12 months from first filing (Paris Convention)
• The 30-month reflex must be relearned for Nepal

The direct national filing

The mechanics are compact: Schedule 1(a) application at the Department of Industry with specification, claims, drawings and abstract; applicant and inventor details; notarised Power of Attorney for foreign applicants; and corporate documents where companies apply. Examination runs on the papers with technical input; grant opens the 7-year term, renewable twice.

Foreign formalities deserve early attention: the POA and corporate papers must be legalised — and Nepal, notably, is not a party to the Apostille Convention, so documents need consular legalisation rather than an apostille (covered in detail in our POA guide). Building the document stack is usually the critical path for meeting a 12-month priority deadline.

• Schedule 1(a) + specification, claims, drawings
• Foreign set: notarised POA + legalised corporate papers (consular, not apostille)
• Grant = 7-year term, renewable twice (21 max), annual maintenance

When a Nepalese patent is worth filing

Nepal's patent economics — short maximum term, modest market size, working requirement — mean the filing decision should be commercially specific. The cases that justify it: manufacturing or assembly of the invention in Nepal (the working requirement rewards exactly this); regulatory or export significance, where the invention underpins products sold into Nepal; licensing partners who need a local asset to license; and defensive value where competitors' activity in Nepal is concrete.

The cases that do not: portfolio reflex ('file everywhere the PCT goes'), speculative coverage with no Nepalese activity planned, and inventions whose commercial life is shorter than the cost-and-effort horizon. A Nepalese patent is a working asset here — file it where it will be worked.

• File where the invention will be made, used or licensed
• Portfolio reflex wastes the budget: 21-year cap, annual fees, working requirement
• Let Nepalese commercial interest, not PCT habit, drive the decision

Could the PCT gap close?

PCT accession requires domestic capacity to receive, search-support and process international applications — infrastructure Nepal's current statute and office practices do not yet provide. As with Madrid, the draft Industrial Property Bill is the expected precursor: a modern statute with TRIPS-aligned terms and procedures is the foundation on which treaty accessions get built. Until then, plan every Nepalese patent as a direct filing with a 12-month priority clock.