Authored By: Luyando Chizongo
University of Lusaka
ABSTRACT
Zambia has invested in modern intellectual property (IP) architecture over the past few years, which includes the Patents Act 20161. The Patents and Company Registration Agency Act2 was also introduced to reconfirm and strengthen the Patents and Company Registration Agency (PACRA), which is responsible for administering Intellectual Property legislation. These reforms were aimed at protecting inventors, investors, and creatives in general. They were also aimed at encouraging innovation-led economic and social development. Despite these developments, many inventors and investors in Zambia continue to be hindered by the effects of regulatory red tape and procedural delays. Inventors are often exposed to form-driven bottlenecks perpetuated by information asymmetries, resulting in economic inefficiencies and the exploitation of inventors.
This article addresses two major issues: how bureaucratic processes impede efficient enforcement of patent rights, and what fast-track mechanisms could best supply the necessary velocity in rights enforcement required by creative markets for economic efficiency and growth. Using South Africa’s specialised Court of the Commissioner of Patents as a comparative model, the article analyses how streamlined judicial procedures foster expedited dispute resolution. By embedding urgency into administrative and judicial workflow, Zambia can strengthen deterrence, enhance the bargaining power of inventors, and align its legal framework with the economic imperatives of the flourishing creative industry.
LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Patents in Zambia are primarily regulated by the Patents Act 2016 (‘the Act’), which outlines the requirements for patentability, the registration process, application requirements, rights of patentees, and other related matters, including infringement and publications in the Industrial Property Journal. The Act in Section 13 further provides that the Minister is conferred with the power to make regulations by way of Statutory Instrument that are deemed necessary for giving effect to the Act’s registration process and other procedural requirements, hence the enactment of the Patent Regulations3. These regulations outline the prescribed manner and form in which such applications and other procedural matters must be carried out.
The Commercial Division of the High Court deals with any causes arising out of any transaction relating to commerce, trade, industry, or any action of a business nature4. This definition covers industrial property matters. This division of the High Court is designed as a fast-track court with strict timelines and case-management mechanisms (such as mediation and arbitration orders, and scheduling proceedings), as outlined in Order LIII of the High Court (Amendment) Rules 2012, and failure to meet these timelines results in dismissal of many applications and matters5. These mechanisms are meant to push matters to early resolution, as well as reinforce judicial speed and predictability, providing a foundation for a swifter operating industrial property docket.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
With regards to patent registration and other related applications to the Agency, on paper, the regime is clear; all processes, forms, and necessary accompanying documentation are clearly outlined. In practice, however, inventors can encounter what are known as forms-driven bottlenecks and information asymmetries that compound procedural delays. Information asymmetries occur when one party to a transaction possesses more or better information than the other, resulting in an imbalance of power and potentially resulting in exploitation6. Information asymmetries are what potentially lead to forms-driven bottlenecks, which occur when the input of a workflow, i.e., data from forms, overwhelms the system’s ability to process efficiently, thereby slowing down or halting the entire process7. For instance, the required publication of application acceptance, grants of patents, and other formal steps in the Industrial Property Journal8 may add to the delay. The lack of properly specified timelines for these publications, as well as for decisions, which are to be made as soon as practicable or within a prescribed period9, causes undue procedural lag, especially in the presence of knowledge gaps among inventors. This, coupled with the delayed enhancement of the Intellectual Property Automation System (IPAS)10 and the insufficiency of available information, poses serious threats to the due process of the law in enforcing patent rights, and to economic efficiency.
As part of its mandates, PACRA (‘the Agency’) is required to operate intellectual property registries and provide services efficiently11. In its 2021-2026 Strategic Plan, the Agency recognised that timeliness at the registry is an integral part of market confidence12. The Agency also noted the public need for easy access to relevant information on intellectual property rights, as well as business associations’ need for efficient and cost-effective registration processes13. In line with this, automated and streamlined processes were listed as a key point in the strategic improvement of service delivery. This shows that current procedural requirements and processes have indeed posed a threat and challenge to the proper administration of the Act, and consequently, the enforcement of patent rights.
These registry and timeline frictions are important because judicial protections of patentees’ rights often depend on the clarity, currency, and completeness of the registry records. Delayed, unclear, and incomplete administrative updates result not only in higher litigation costs during the commencement of proceedings and in satisfying evidentiary burdens, but also deprivation of the patent owner’s right to access to justice.
Even with the promise of fast-tracked justice from the Commercial Division, many challenges still exist. In spite of new case-management mechanisms, delays can still accrue between filing and hearing, especially where pleadings are lengthy and voluminous, as well as where expert evidence is required due to the absence of specialised intellectual property benches or sitting experts. The result of this is a mismatch in fast-track principles and procedural engineering. Industrial property matters are not consistently channelled into specialised tracks with dedicated case allocation, directions, or uniform interlocutory templates tailored to patent litigation.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
With regard to court process, South Africa’s experience with patents and intellectual property as a whole offers practical lessons. Infringement and validity proceedings are heard at first instance by the Court of the Commissioner of Patents sitting within the High Court of Pretoria with nationwide jurisdiction14. Practice directions in the Gauteng Division require matter classification at commencement15. Hearing pathways are further assigned, alongside the integration of electronic case management. The Commissioner can consolidate infringement and validity issues where it is deemed appropriate, which further reduces fragmentation and cuts down cumulative procedural delays16. Trials, though dependent on the complexity of the matter and cooperation of the parties, last for significantly shorter periods of time as compared to Zambia; one week for less complex matters, and four weeks for more intricate legal issues. Only matters involving multiple witnesses and expert testimony may drag on for longer periods of time, even up to months17. Despite this, however, the claimant in patent disputes has no other choice of forum besides the High Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over intellectual property matters, which may result in further court backlog. But this has been remedied by the extensive use of electronic means.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The takeaway for Zambia is not to replicate South Africa’s institutional design wholesale, but rather to adopt procedural instruments that deliver similar time savings within the Commercial Division. By creating a specialist IP track with a designated roster of specialised judges and the introduction of Practice Directions, cause-types are more easily defined, and matters are more efficiently classified (i.e., implementing classification upon filing), thereby leveraging the existing fast-track nature of the Commercial Division. Investing in judicial capacity building by partnering with the World Intellectual Property Organisation for bench training for specialised intellectual property judges18, as well as expanding the role and use of Technology and Innovation Centres (TICs) to assist with documentation for urgent proceedings, are steps that are also necessary for the creation of more comprehensive subject-matter focused trials19 and decreasing procedural lag, thereby promoting judicial efficiency. Furthermore, by adopting motion-centric urgent relief that formalises application-driven interlocutory practice for interim injunctions with tight model timetables20, it addresses the issue of prolonged proceedings, thereby unlocking months of time-saving and making the judicial system more efficient and trustworthy.
Additionally, integrating live data pipelines from PACRA’s IPAS to the Court’s e-filing system potentially reduces disputes about standing, entitlement, and claim scope, thus ensuring clarity and early settlement of disputes. Furthermore, to improve and ensure the highest quality of service delivery, the Agency’s strategic intents must be transformed into binding service standards. Additionally, to ensure transparency, through its IPAS, the Agency must adhere to strict timelines in publishing dashboards that equip users with the necessary information to remedy information asymmetries. Predictable timelines and binding service standards reduce pre-litigation drag that erodes deterrence and promotes accountability within and outside the Agency.
CONCLUSION
Industrial property owners operate within compressed commercial clocks; be it a campaign, a product launch, or a particular season and series of other events. Just as well, litigation requires the same sense of urgency, not only for interim reliefs, but also for first merit hearings, and even appeals. Zambia’s legal framework may support urgency in theory, but lacks codified time standards and predictable pathways. The challenge is to engineer procedures, whether legal or administrative, around the realities of innovative timelines characterised by short monetisation windows, cash-flow sensitivity, and the need for speedy interim relief to prevent infringement. Specialised IP courts presided over by expert judges, alongside better integrated digital systems connecting users with the Agency, as well as the Agency with the Court, would significantly unclog the pipeline from creation to enforcement, thus allowing Zambian inventors to continue to strive for economic and social growth, having been granted the urgency that the law promises.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
20 (2020/59577) [2021] ZACCP 2; 2021 BIP 5 (CP) (21 June 2021)
STATUTES
Patents Act No.40 of 2016
Patents and Companies Registration Agency Act No.4 of 2020
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
High Court (Amendment) Rules 2012 Statutory Instrument No. 27 of 2012 Revised Consolidated practice Directive 1/2024: Court operations in the Gauteng Division The Patents Regulations [Arrangement of regulations]
CASES
Microsoft (SA) Proprietary Limited v You First Mobile (Proprietary) Limited (2020/59577) [2021] ZACCP 2; 2021 BIP 5 (CP) (21 June 2021).
REPORTS
Global Perspectives and Challenges for the Intellectual Property System A CEIPI-ICTSD publication series, Issue Number 2 March 2016
PACRA 2021-2026 Revised Strategic Plan August 2023
INTERNET SOURCES
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/asymmetricinformation.asp> accessed 27th August, 2025.
<https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/patent-litigation-2025> Patent Litigation 2025 Last Updated January 23, 2025, accessed 28th August, 2025.
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/asymmetricinformation.asp> accessed 27th August, 2025.
<https://www.pipedrive.com/en/blog/what-is-a-bottleneck-in-business> accessed 28th August, 2025.
<https://iclg.com/> (2024, October 09). South Africa. In Patents Laws and Regulations.
<https://www.pacra.org.zm/?page_id=94> accessed 20th August, 2025
1 Act No.40 of 2016
2 Act No. 4 of 2020
3 The Patents Regulations
4 SI No. 27 of 2012
5ibid
6 <https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/asymmetricinformation.asp> accessed 27th August, 2025.
7 <https://www.pipedrive.com/en/blog/what-is-a-bottleneck-in-business> accessed 28th August, 2025.
8 Act No.40 of 2016
9ibid
10 PACRA 2021-2026 Revised Strategic Plan August 2023
11 <https://www.pacra.org.zm/?page_id=94> accessed 20th August, 2025
12 PACRA 2021-2026 Revised Strategic Plan August 2023
13 ibid
14<https://iclg.com/> (2024, October 09). South Africa. In Patents Laws and Regulations. 15Consolidated practice Directive 1/2024
16 ibid
17 <https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/patent-litigation-2025> Chambers Patent Litigation 2025 Last Updated January 23, 2025, accessed 28th August, 2025
18Global Perspectives and Challenges for the Intellectual Property System Issue Number 2 March 2016 19 Consolidated practice Directive 1/2024
