South Africa Afrique du Sud Südafrika. Report Q189. in the name of the South African Group by Hans H. HAHN, Janusz LUTEREK and HUGH MOUBRAY
|
|
- Allan Preston
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 South Africa Afrique du Sud Südafrika Report Q189 in the name of the South African Group by Hans H. HAHN, Janusz LUTEREK and HUGH MOUBRAY Amendment of patent claims after grant (in court and administrative proceedings, including re examination proceedings requested by third parties) Questions 1) Does your national law permit post grant amendment of patent claims? Yes. The relevant Section is Section 51 of which the pertinent subsections are quoted in what follows: 51 Amendment of specification 1) An applicant for a patent or a patentee may at any time apply in the prescribed manner to the registrar for the amendment of either the relevant provisional specification or the relevant complete specification, and shall in making such application, set out the nature of the proposed amendment and furnish his full reasons therefor. 2) An application for the amendment of a specification that is open to public inspection shall, except in the case of an application so open in terms of section 43 (3), be advertised in the prescribed manner. 3) a) Any person may oppose such application for amendment within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner. b) Such opposition to such application for amendment shall be dealt with by the commissioner in the prescribed manner, and the commissioner shall determine whether and on what conditions, if any, the amendment ought to be allowed. 4) Where the acceptance of a specification concerned has not been published in terms of section 42 or there is no opposition in terms of subsection (3) (a) of this section, the registrar may determine whether and on which conditions, if any, the amendment ought to be allowed. 6) No amendment of a complete specification which becomes open to public inspection after the publication of the acceptance of the specification in terms of section 42, whether before of after it so becomes open to public inspection, shall be allowed if a) the effect of the amendment would be to introduce new matter or matter not in substance disclosed in the specification before amendment; or b) the specification as amended would include any claim not fairly based on matter disclosed in the specification before amendment. 1
2 7) No amendment of a complete specification which has become open to public inspection after the publication of the acceptance of the specification in terms of section 42 shall be allowed if the specification as amended would include any claims not wholly within the scope of a claim included in the specification before amendment. Are utility models if available treated the same way as patents or differently? If so, what are the differences? Utility models are not known in South African law. Instead, South African Design Law provides for a category of so called functional designs. These are governed by the South African Designs Act and fall outside the scope of the present question. 2) Who is entitled to request post grant amendment of patent claims under your national law? Only the patentee can apply. 3) What is the procedural framework for requesting post grant amendment of patent claims under your national law, in particular: What procedures (judicial, administrative or other) are available for dealing with requests for post grant amendment of patent claims under your national law? a) ex parte voluntary application for amendment The procedure is by way of application to the Registrar of the Patent Office (see Section 51 quoted under 1)). It is extremely important to state the reasons for the amendment fully and truthfully. If this requirement is not observed, any third party may at an stage apply to the Commissioner for the amendment to be set aside. b) further amendments if a) is opposed can be applied for at any stage of a). If this leads to a settlement of opposition in a), the new amendments will be advertised and become open to opposition to third parties Otherwise, the court may decide on the allowability of the further amendments and if found allowable, order their advertisement for possible opposition by any interested third party (other than the previous opponent). c) proceedings in revocation or other litigation As for b) above, but application must then be made to the Court and not to the Registrar. Are all of these procedures freely available under your national law to those wishing to request post grant amendment of patent claims, or does the law give priority to certain procedural measures in certain situations? The only restriction is as per 2) above. One other point to consider is that in ex parte unopposed proceedings (see a) above), the amendments are allowed without examination as to the merits by the office of the Registrar of Patents, whereas in the case of an opposition or other litigation any decision is made by the court. Is it possible under your national law for patentees to make multiple subsequent amendments of patent claims directed towards individual alleged infringers? The law does not limit the number of amendments made. However, the effects of the amendments, once made, are cumulative and all amendments are effective equally in relation to the public as a whole. The amendments cannot be applied selectively to individual parties and not to others. This does not limit the right of patentees to agree inter partes as to the enforcement or non enforcement of the patent against certain acts committed by a particular party. 2
3 An amendment once made cannot be undone except by way of a further amendment meeting all the requirements. It is possible to amend to include multiple independent claims directed towards different infringers. Who is entitled to amend claims? Is this limited to courts or do also the patent offices have the competence to amend claims? Please limit the answer to a general description of the proceedings avoiding discussion of procedural details and peculiarities. All amendments must be applied for by the patentee. The amendments in unopposed applications are granted by the patent office (Registrar of Patents), subject to appeal to the Court and subject to being set aside on application to the court by any party at any subsequent time on good cause being shown (e.g. not made in good faith; reasons given for the amendment not truthful or that the amendments were ultra vires the act). Amendments made during litigation are decided on by the Court and become binding as between the parties after the Court s decision has become final. 4) What are the substantive conditions for allowing post grant amendment of patent claims under your national law, in particular: See Section 51 quoted under 1) above. In South African Law a distinction is made between an amendment and a correction (of clerical errors or errors in translation Sect. 50 (1) (a)). Corrections of clerical errors and errors in translations Sect. 50 (1) (a) can be made at any time, and may even broaden the scope of a claim. Is there a distinction in your national law between the remedies available to patentees/third parties and/or the substantive conditions applicable to patentees/third parties for allowing post grant amendment? The question is not understood. Only the patentee can apply for an amendment. The rights of third parties are restricted to opposing such amendments on the grounds available in law or to apply for amendment already made to be set aside on the ground that the amendments should not have been allowed (see above). In what ways may patent claims be amended post grant under your national law? See Section 51 quoted above. Is it a requirement (or a possibility) under your national law that the description/ specification be amended to correspond with amendments of the claims? Amendments to the description/specification are possible. The effect of such amendments must not be to introduce new matter, meaning matter not in substance described/ disclosed in the specification (including the claims and drawings) as originally filed, except in order to correct an obvious mistake. There exists very little case law in South Africa on the subject. However, according to existing practice, there exists considerable freedom to rely on matters apparent (to the addressee/skilled reader) from the context of the description, the wording of claims and an interpretation of the drawings. (This is in line with the South African practice to include omnibus claims based on the drawings). The prevailing view in South Africa places the emphasis on the substance which is disclosed in contrast to EPO practice, which places the emphasis on following the precise wording used in the documents as filed originally. 3
4 Subject to the aforegoing, it is indeed possible, even though not an absolute requirement (according to existing case law), to amend the specification/description in line with amendments made to the claims. Is it possible to make amendments for the purposes of clarification and/or correction of errors? Yes. However amendments to correct errors must be distinguished from the correction of clerical errors for which a different procedure is followed. 5) What are the consequences for third parties of post grant amendments of patent clams under your national law, in particular: The effect of post grant amendments of claims is retroactive to the date of filing of the patent application. This also raises questions about the liability to pay royalties of existing or past licensees. Can they demand repayment of past royalties? If so, how far back? Does prescription apply to royalties paid more than 3 years back? To what extent can licensors contract out of such an obligation by appropriate wording of the licence agreement? Could third parties (e.g. under common law) claim damages or other relief, e.g. compulsory licence, if they availed themselves of the subject matter of a patent, knowing same to be invalid and subsequently, after amendment finding themselves in an infringement situation? All of the above are open questions to which existing court decisions provide no apparent answers and on which the group was unable to arrive at an opinion. All that can be said is that the Commissioner has the discretion not to award damages and to award costs as he deems fit if the patentee has framed his claims broadly and permitted them to remain so framed knowingly. What are the consequences for third parties liability for patent infringement where patent claims are amended post grant? a) If the amendment repairs a previously existing invalidity, third parties certainly become liable as from the date of advertisement of the amendment. b) As regards liability for infringement prior to the date of advertisement of the amendments, it is possible that third parties could raise the defence that when they committed the infringing acts in the past they were entitled to believe that the patent is invalid. In South African Law invalidity is a defence against infringement, i.e. there can be no infringement of an invalid claim. It is a further defence in South African Law against liability for damages if the infringer can show that it had no reasonable means to know that it was infringing. A sub question arises whether the aforesaid defences could be raised if the set of claims prior to amendment included any claims which were valid and infringed prior to the amendment. The Commissioner has a discretion to award damages for a partially valid patent but has never done so in the past. Are amendments effective only inter partes or, conversely, erga omnes, including in relation to previously decided cases? The last phrase is understood to relate to decided cases concerning the same patent. This raises a further question: if relevant at all, must a distinction be made between decisions involving the same parties and decisions involving different parties? Amendments, once granted, are effective ergo omnes (note: but see the sub-questions raised in the introduction to question I5)). 4
5 Are amendments effective only ex nunc or also ex tunc? Does that depend on the context in which the amendment is made? The context in which the amendment is made is irrelevant, because the effect of the amendment applies to everybody (i.e. not only the parties in a particular dispute)? II) Proposals for substantive harmonisation The Groups are invited to put forward their proposals for adoption of uniform rules, and in particular to consider the following questions: 6) Should post grant amendment of patent claims be permitted? The South African Group thinks so quite definitely. This must definitely apply to non examination countries. However, having regard to the imperfections of even the best examination systems, it is believed that this should apply everywhere. 7) Who should be entitled to request post grant amendment of patent claims and who should have the competence to amend? In principle, only the patentee should have the right to apply for amendments (perhaps in very specific circumstances, such as inaction of the patentee, also an exclusive licensee). Where national law permits the right to enforce or defend the patent to be transferred to another party (e.g. a licensee or beneficial owner of the patent) such transfer should logically include the right to apply for amendment. The amendment should in non litigated matters be made by the patent office (or its designated officer, e.g. the Registrar). In litigation the amendment should be decided upon by the or a competent court which may delegate the administrative aspects to the patent office. 8) What should be the substantial conditions for allowing post grant amendment of patent claims? In principle, the South African Group is satisfied with the relevant provisions in South African national law as set out above. Having regard to the length of the term of a patent, it is impossible to predict at the time of filing and (even where the benefits of an examination are available) prior to grant what may happen during the life of the patent. It is believed that the basic principles and flexibilities applied in the South African national system provide a fair balance between the justifiable interests of the patentee and those of the public. These principles have been developed over a period of a century in the course of numerous changes in South African legislation, invariably also with due consideration to developments of the laws of other countries, English speaking or otherwise, including the Strasbourg Convention. It is possible that some adaptations may be needed in countries where different jurisdictions apply to infringement and validity matters respectively. The South African Group feels that South African national law correctly reflects the desirable substantial conditions. These may be summarised as follows: a) Amendments must in substance have a basis in the disclosure as originally filed, such disclosure including the description/specification, claims and drawings. The test should be the understanding of the addressee skilled in the art. The precise wording used originally should not be the sole criterion. b) Each amended claim must be wholly within the scope of at least one granted claim. 5
6 c) It should be possible to correct an obvious mistake, obvious meaning that the mistake will be apparent to a skilled addressee reading the specification, claims and drawings intelligently and who makes a bona fide effort to understand the documents, applying the knowledge in the art existing on the date of filing the application. Such corrections can even broaden the scope. d) It should be possible to introduce explanations, e.g. of the terminology used, and of differences between the claimed invention from the prior art and in support of inventive step. It is submitted that the above strikes the correct fair balance between the interests of the patentee and of the public. 9) Should there be a distinction between the remedies available to patentees/third parties and/or the substantive conditions applicable to patentees/third parties for allowing post grant amendment? Third parties should have no right to participate in the amendment process as such other than: a) to object to the grant of the amendments on grounds available in law (which may include the ground that the conduct of the patentee has been such that the court should disallow the amendments); b) to seek remedies against any prejudice resulting from the amendment as granted. Again the conduct of the patentee should be taken into account. 10) What should be the consequences for third parties liability for patent infringement where patent claims are amended post grant? The South African Group has reached no conclusions. See also comments and questions raised further above under I 5). 11) Does your Group have any other views or proposals for harmonisation in this area? No. Summary South African Patent Law permits the patentee to apply for post grant amendments of claims at any time, even after a patent has already expired. It is necessary to state fully and truthfully the reasons for making the amendment. The amendments must in substance have a basis in the disclosure as originally filed, including the description, claims and drawings as understood by the person skilled in the art. The precise wording used originally is not the sole criterion. Each amended claim must be wholly, within the scope of at least one granted claim. Correction of an obvious mistake is permitted, even if the scope of a claim is broadened thereby. The South African Group believes that the above principles of South African Law strike the correct balance between the interests of the patentee and of the public and are suitable for purposes of harmonisation. 6
7 Zusammenfassung Das südafrikanische Patentrecht ermöglicht es dem Patentinhaber jederzeit, sogar nachdem ein Patent bereits verfallen ist, auch nach der Erteilung die Änderung der Patentansprüche zu beantragen. Die Änderung muss vollständig und wahrheitsgemäss begründet werden. Die Änderungen müssen im Wesentlichen aus der ursprünglich eingereichten Offenbarung ent nehmbar sein, einschliesslich der Beschreibung, Ansprüche und Zeichnungen, wie diese für den Fachmann verständlich sind. Der genaue ursprünglich verwendete Wortlaut ist nicht ausschliesslich entscheidend. Jeder geänderte Anspruch muss voll innerhalb des Schutzumfanges wenigstens eines erteilten Anspruchs liegen. Die Berichtigung eines offensichtlichen Irrtums ist auch dann statthaft, wenn dadurch der Schutzumfang erweitert wird. Die südafrikanische Gruppe ist der Ansicht, dass die oben genannten Grundsätze des südafrikanischen Rechtes den richtigen Ausgleich zwischen den Interessen des Patentinhabers und denen der Öffentlichkeit bilden und deshalb für eine Harmonisierung geeignet sind. 7
Japan Japon Japan. Report Q189. in the name of the Japanese Group
Japan Japon Japan Report Q189 in the name of the Japanese Group Amendment of patent claims after grant (in court and administrative proceedings, including re examination proceedings requested by third
More informationSummary Report. Report Q189
Summary Report Report Q189 Amendment of patent claims after grant (in court and administrative proceedings, including re examination proceedings requested by third parties) The intention with Q189 was
More informationThe Netherlands Pays Bas Niederlande. Report Q189. in the name of the Dutch Group
The Netherlands Pays Bas Niederlande Report Q189 in the name of the Dutch Group Amendment of patent claims after grant (in court and administrative proceedings, including re examination proceedings requested
More informationDivisional, Continuation and Continuation-in-Part Applications (Q 193)
Die Seite der AIPPI / La page de l AIPPI Divisional, Continuation and Continuation-in-Part Applications (Q 193) REPORT OF SWISS GROUP * Die Schweizer Gruppe sieht mehrere Vorteile für den Anmelder und
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings
Question Q229 National Group: Hungary Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: Dr. Marcell KERESZTY (Head of the Working Committee), Dr. Daisy MACHYTKA-FRANK,
More informationPOST-GRANT AMENDMENT JOHN RICHARDS
23 rd Annual Fordham Intellectual Property Law & Policy Conference Cambridge, April 8-9, 2015 POST-GRANT AMENDMENT JOHN RICHARDS The Problem There is a real life problem in that when filing a patent application
More informationNo. According to the PTO s internal examination guidelines, second medical use claims are not patentable.
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Argentina Second medical use or indication claims Gastón RICHELET, Ricardo D. RICHELET Gastón RICHELET Date: May 19,
More informationBE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-
~ THE PATENTS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 # NO. 15 OF 2005 $ [4th April, 2005] + An Act further to amend the Patents Act, 1970. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-sixth Year of the Republic of India as
More informationSwitzerland Suisse Schweiz. Report Q193
Switzerland Suisse Schweiz Report Q193 in the name of the Swiss Group by Andrea CARREIRA, Jan D HAEMER, Andri HESS, Paul PLISKA, Michael STÖRZBACH and Marco ZARDI Divisional, Continuation and Continuation
More informationHUNGARY Patent Act Act XXXIII of 1995 as consolidated on March 01, 2015
HUNGARY Patent Act Act XXXIII of 1995 as consolidated on March 01, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I INVENTIONS AND PATENTS Chapter I SUBJECT MATTER OF PATENT PROTECTION Article 1 Patentable inventions Article
More informationThe Patents (Amendment) Act,
!"# The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 1 [NO. 15 OF 2005] CONTENTS [April 4, 2005] Sections Sections 1. Short title and commencement 40. Amendment of Section 57 2. Amendment of Section 2 41. Substitution
More informationDenmark Danemark Dänemark. Report Q193. in the name of the Danish Group by Ejvind CHRISTIANSEN, Torsten NØRGAARD and Holm SCHWARZE
Denmark Danemark Dänemark Report Q193 in the name of the Danish Group by Ejvind CHRISTIANSEN, Torsten NØRGAARD and Holm SCHWARZE Divisional, Continuation and Continuation in Part Patent Applications Questions
More informationPeople's Republic of Bangladesh THE PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACT ACT NO. II OF 1911 as amended by Act No. XV of 2003 Entry into force: May 13, 2003
People's Republic of Bangladesh THE PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACT ACT NO. II OF 1911 as amended by Act No. XV of 2003 Entry into force: May 13, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY 1. Short title, extent and commencement
More informationSFIR / AIPPI 31 August Amendment of patent claims in France. Partial revocation of a claim by Court (only possibility until January 1, 2009)
Amendment of patent claims in France SFIR / AIPPI 31 August 2009 Isabelle Romet Paris Lyon Content 1. 2. Partial revocation of a claim by Court (only possibility until January 1, 2009) Ex-parte limitation
More informationAPPLICABILITY TO SOUTH WEST AFRICA:
Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Copyright Act 9 of 1916 (SA), certain sections only (SA GG 727) came into force on date of publication: 15 April 1916 Only the portions of this Act relating to patents
More informationAUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017
AUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introductory 1 Short title 2 Commencement
More informationArgentina Argentine Argentinien. Report Q193. in the name of the Argentinian Group
Argentina Argentine Argentinien Report Q193 in the name of the Argentinian Group Divisional, Continuation and Continuation in Part Patent Applications Questions I) Analysis of the current law 1) Are divisional,
More information4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA
4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA Provisions of the Indian patent law were compared with the relevant provisions of the patent laws in U.S., Europe and
More informationDr. Nael Bunni, Chairman, Dispute Resolution Panel, Engineers Ireland, 22 Clyde Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4. December 2000.
Preamble This Arbitration Procedure has been prepared by Engineers Ireland principally for use with the Engineers Ireland Conditions of Contract for arbitrations conducted under the Arbitration Acts 1954
More informationLiability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement
Question Q204P National Group: AIPPI PANAMA GROUP Title: Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement Contributors: Julie Martinelli Representative within Working
More informationCompilation date: 24 February Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, Registered: 27 February 2017
Patents Act 1990 No. 83, 1990 Compilation No. 41 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017 This compilation includes commenced amendments
More informationNIGERIA Patents and Designs Act Chapter 344, December 1, 1971 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990
NIGERIA Patents and Designs Act Chapter 344, December 1, 1971 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS Patents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Designs 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
More informationNetherlands Pays Bas Niederlande. Report Q193. in the name of the Dutch Group by Lars DE HAAS, Addick LAND, Hans PRINS and Marc VAN WIJNGAARDEN
Netherlands Pays Bas Niederlande Report Q193 in the name of the Dutch Group by Lars DE HAAS, Addick LAND, Hans PRINS and Marc VAN WIJNGAARDEN Divisional, Continuation and Continuation in Part Patent Applications
More informationPoland Pologne Polen. Report Q193. in the name of the Polish Group by Agnieszka JAKOBSCHE and Katarzyna KARCZ
Poland Pologne Polen Report Q193 in the name of the Polish Group by Agnieszka JAKOBSCHE and Katarzyna KARCZ Divisional, Continuation and Continuation in Part Patent Applications Questions I) Analysis of
More informationPoland Pologne Polen. Report Q205. in the name of the Polish Group by Katarzyna KARCZ, Jaromir PIWOWAR, Tomasz RYCHLICKI
Poland Pologne Polen Report Q205 in the name of the Polish Group by Katarzyna KARCZ, Jaromir PIWOWAR, Tomasz RYCHLICKI Exhaustion of IPRs in cases of recycling and repair of goods Questions I) Analysis
More informationSweden Suède Schweden. Report Q202
Sweden Suède Schweden Report Q202 in the name of the Swedish Group by Fredrik CARLSSON, Ivan HJERTMAN, Bo JOHANSSON, Birgitta LARSSON, Hampus RYSTEDT, Louise WALLIN, Claudia WALLMAN and Johan ÖBERG The
More informationThe Rule 164 Problem. Non unity objections as made by the EPO, and potential remedies. Presentation at VPP Bezirksgruppenveranstaltung April 28, 2010
The Rule 164 Problem Non unity objections as made by the EPO, and potential remedies Presentation at VPP Bezirksgruppenveranstaltung April 28, 2010 Dipl. Ing. Andreas Gröschel Dr. Ulrich Storz M I C H
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: AUSTRIA Second medical use or indication claims Marc KESCHMANN Marc KESCHMANN Date: May 12, 2014 Questions I. Current
More informationTHE PATENTS ACT 1970
THE PATENTS ACT 1970 (39 of 1970) An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to patents. (19 th September, 1970) Be it enacted by Parliament in the twenty first year of the Republic of India as follows;-
More informationIntellectual Property Reform In Australia
Intellectual Property Reform In Australia January 2013 A summary of important legislative changes PATENTS TRADE MARKS DESIGNS PLANT BREEDER S RIGHTS Robust intellectual property rights delivered efficiently
More informationPATENTS ACT NO. 57 OF 1978 [ASSENTED TO 26 APRIL, 1978] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 JANUARY, 1979]
PATENTS ACT NO. 57 OF 1978 [ASSENTED TO 26 APRIL, 1978] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 JANUARY, 1979] (Unless otherwise indicated) (English text signed by the State President) as amended by Patents Amendment
More informationCOMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION (CIPC) (SOUTH AFRICA)
PCT Applicant s Guide National Phase National Chapter Page 1 COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION (CIPC) (SOUTH AFRICA) AS DESIGNATED (OR ELECTED) OFFICE CONTENTS THE ENTRY INTO THE NATIONAL
More informationSUDAN Patents Act Act No. 58 of 1971 ENTRY INTO FORCE: October 15, 1971
SUDAN Patents Act Act No. 58 of 1971 ENTRY INTO FORCE: October 15, 1971 TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I Preliminary Provisions Chapter I 1. Title 2. Definitions Chapter II Terms of Patentability 3. Patentable
More informationThe Patents Act 1977 (as amended)
The Patents Act 1977 (as amended) An unofficial consolidation produced by Patents Legal Section 17 December 2007 UK Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office 1 Note to users
More informationHUNGARY Utility Model Act Act XXXVIII OF 1991 on the protection of utility models as consolidated on April 1, 2013
HUNGARY Utility Model Act Act XXXVIII OF 1991 on the protection of utility models as consolidated on April 1, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I SUBJECT MATTER OF AND RIGHTS CONFERRED BY UTILITY MODEL PROTECTION
More informationHungary Hongrie Ungarn. Report Q204
Hungary Hongrie Ungarn Report Q204 in the name of the Hungarian Group by Marcell KERESZTY, András ANTALFFY-ZSÍROS, Judit KERÉNY, Katalin MÉSZÁROS, Imre MOLNÁR, Tivadar PALÁGYI and Zsolt SZENTPÉTERI Liability
More informationREPUBLIC OF VANUATU BILL FOR THE PATENTS ACT NO. OF 1999
REPUBLIC OF VANUATU BILL FOR THE PATENTS ACT NO. OF 1999 Arrangement of Sections PART 1 PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS 1. Interpretation PART 2 PATENTABILITY 2. Patentable invention 3. Inventions not patentable
More informationAZERBAIJAN Law on Patent Date of Text (Enacted): July 25, 1997 ENTRY INTO FORCE: August 2, 1997
AZERBAIJAN Law on Patent Date of Text (Enacted): July 25, 1997 ENTRY INTO FORCE: August 2, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I General Provisions Article 1 Basic notions Article 2 Legislation of the Republic
More informationInventorship of Multinational Inventions (Q 244)
Die Seite der AIPPI La page de l AIPPI Inventorship of Multinational Inventions (Q 244) REPORT OF SWISS GROUP * Questions I. Current law and practice 1. Please describe your law defining inventorship and
More informationEffective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents
Effective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents Walter Holzer 1 S.G.D.G. Patents are granted with a presumption of validity. 2 A patent examiner simply cannot be aware of all facts and circumstances
More informationPatent litigation. Block 3. Module UPC Law Essentials
Patent litigation. Block 3; Module UPC Law Patent litigation. Block 3. Module UPC Law Essentials Article 32(f) of the UPC Agreement ( UPCA ) states that subject to the transitional regime of Article 83
More informationLAWS OF MALAWI PATENTS CHAPTER 49:02 CURRENT PAGES
PATENTS CHAPTER 49:02 PAGE CURRENT PAGES L.R.O. 1 4 1/1986 5 10 1/1968 11 12 1/1986 13 64 1/1968 65 68 1/1970 69-86 1/1968 87 88 1/1970 89 90 1/1993 91 108 1/1968 109 112 1/1993 112a 1/1993 113 114 1/1968
More informationMagic Phrases And Terms Formulierungsvorschläge für englische Vertragsverhandlungen
Universität Ulm Zentrale Verwaltung Abteilung III-2, Recht und Struktur Magic Phrases And Terms Formulierungsvorschläge für englische Vertragsverhandlungen Die Universitätsverwaltung hat in einem Merkblatt
More informationKingdom of Bhutan The Industrial Property Act enacted on July 13, 2001 entry into force: 2001 (Part III, Sections 17 to 23: May 1, 2009)
Kingdom of Bhutan The Industrial Property Act enacted on July 13, 2001 entry into force: 2001 (Part III, Sections 17 to 23: May 1, 2009) TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Title 2. Commencement 3.
More informationArbitration Law, Updated to March 2015
Law, 1968- Updated to March 2015 Chapter One: Interpretation 1. For purposes this law - agreement A written agreement to refer to arbitration a dispute which has arisen between the parties to the agreement
More informationBELIZE PATENTS ACT CHAPTER 253 REVISED EDITION 2003 SHOWING THE SUBSIDIARY LAWS AS AT 31ST MAY, 2003
BELIZE PATENTS ACT CHAPTER 253 REVISED EDITION 2003 SHOWING THE SUBSIDIARY LAWS AS AT 31ST MAY, 2003 This is a revised edition of the Subsidiary Laws, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the
More informationDamages for the Injuring or Killing of an Animal in Swiss Law
Damages for the Injuring or Killing of an Animal in Swiss Law By Dr. Eveline Schneider Kayasseh 1 I. Introduction On 1 April 2003, after perennial preparatory work and heated public debates, new provisions
More informationJapan Japon Japan. Report Q194. in the name of the Japanese Group by Eiichiro KUBOTA
Japan Japon Japan Report Q194 in the name of the Japanese Group by Eiichiro KUBOTA The Impact of Co Ownership of Intellectual Property Rights on their Exploitation Questions I) The current substantive
More informationIndia Patent Act, 2003 Updated till March 11th, 2015
India Patent Act, 2003 Updated till March 11th, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Definitions and interpretation. CHAPTER II INVENTIONS NOT PATENTABLE
More informationThe opposition procedure and limitation and revocation procedures
The opposition procedure and limitation and revocation procedures Closa Daniel Beaucé Gaëtan 26-30/11/2012 Contents Introduction Legal framework Procedure Intervention of the assumed infringer Observations
More informationNo. 30 of Patents and Industrial Designs Act Certified on: 19/1/2001.
No. 30 of 2000. Patents and Industrial Designs Act 2000. Certified on: 19/1/2001. INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. No. 30 of 2000. Patents and Industrial Designs Act 2000. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS.
More informationCourtesy translation provided by WIPO, 2012
REPUBLIC OF DJIBOUTI UNITY EQUALITY PEACE ********* PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC LAW No. 50/AN/09/6 L On the Protection of Industrial Property Courtesy translation provided by WIPO, 2012 THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
More informationU E R N T BERMUDA 1930 : 33 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I - PRELIMINARY
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACT 1930 [formerly entitled the Patents Designs and Trade Marks Act 1930] 1930 : 33 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
More information(Translated by the Patent Office of the People's Republic of China. In case of discrepancy, the original version in Chinese shall prevail.
Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (Adopted at the 4th Session of the Standing Committee of the Sixth National People's Congress on March 12, 1984, Amended by the Decision Regarding the Revision
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF NEW ZEALAND (IPONZ)
PCT Applicant s Guide National Phase National Chapter Page 1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF NEW ZEALAND (IPO) AS DESIGNATED (OR ELECTED) OFFICE CONTENTS THE ENTRY INTO THE NATIONAL PHASE SUMMARY THE PROCEDURE
More informationAllowability of disclaimers before the European Patent Office
PATENTS Allowability of disclaimers before the European Patent Office EPO DISCLAIMER PRACTICE The Boards of Appeal have permitted for a long time the introduction into the claims during examination of
More informationNEW ZEALAND Patent Regulations SR 1954/211 as at 3 September 2007 as amended by Supreme Court Act (2003 No. 53) ENTRY INTO FORCE: January 1, 2004
NEW ZEALAND Patent Regulations SR 1954/211 as at 3 September 2007 as amended by Supreme Court Act (2003 No. 53) ENTRY INTO FORCE: January 1, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Part 1 Preliminary 1. Title, commencement,
More informationPRE-GRANT OPPOSITION POST-GRANT OPPOSITION
OPPOSITION TYPES OF OPPOSITION PRE-GRANT OPPOSITION [SEC 25(1)] POST-GRANT OPPOSITION [SEC. 25 (2)] REVOCATION[SECs 64 TO 66] GROUNDS FOR OPPOSITION UNDER SECTIONS 25(1) & 25 (2) That the applicant for
More informationPATENT ACT, B.E (1979) 1. BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX; Given on the 11 th Day of March B.E. 2522; Being the 34 th Year of the Present Reign
Unofficial Translation PATENT ACT, B.E. 2522 (1979) 1 BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX; Given on the 11 th Day of March B.E. 2522; Being the 34 th Year of the Present Reign His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is
More informationPatent Act, B.E (1979) As Amended until Patent Act (No.3), B.E (1999) Translation
Patent Act, B.E. 2522 (1979) As Amended until Patent Act (No.3), B.E. 2542 (1999) Translation BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on the 11th day of March, B.E. 2522; Being the 34th year of the present Reign
More informationBELIZE TRADE MARKS ACT CHAPTER 257 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000
BELIZE TRADE MARKS ACT CHAPTER 257 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000 This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the authority of
More informationConsolidated text PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED. The Arbitration (Guernsey) Law, 2016 * [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE
PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED The Arbitration (Guernsey) Law, 2016 * [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE This consolidated version of the enactment incorporates all amendments listed in the footnote below. It has been prepared
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings. Maria CRUZ GARCIA, Isabel FRANCO, João JORGE, Teresa SILVA GARCIA
Question Q229 National Group: Title: Portugal The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: Filipe BAPTISTA, Maria CRUZ GARCIA, Isabel FRANCO, João JORGE, Teresa SILVA GARCIA
More informationROMANIA Patent Law NO.64/1991 OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF ROMANIA, PART I, NO.613/19 AUGUST 2014
ROMANIA Patent Law NO.64/1991 OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF ROMANIA, PART I, NO.613/19 AUGUST 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS Art. 1 Art. 2 Art. 3 Art. 4 Art. 5 CHAPTER II - PATENTABLE INVENTIONS
More informationThe Judgment can be accessed here at the website of the Delhi High Court. The Judgment can also be accessed here at India Kanoon website.
The Judgment can be accessed here at the website of the Delhi High Court. The Judgment can also be accessed here at India Kanoon website. The Facts: The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Plaintiff
More informationBRUNEI Patent Order 2011
BRUNEI Patent Order 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Citation, commencement and long title 2. Interpretation 3. Order to bind Government PART II ADMINISTRATION 4. Registrar of Patents and other
More information"It may also be desirable for the parties to stipulate in the arbitration clause itself:
International Commercial Arbitration Module (FS 2015, March 17, 2015) 1 7 Handout re Arbitration Agreements I. Standard Clauses 1. Swiss Rules "Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of, or in relation
More informationTRADE MARKS (JERSEY) LAW 2000
TRADE MARKS (JERSEY) LAW 2000 Revised Edition Showing the law as at 1 January 2017 This is a revised edition of the law Trade Marks (Jersey) Law 2000 Arrangement TRADE MARKS (JERSEY) LAW 2000 Arrangement
More informationOFFICIAL GAZETTE OF ROMANIA, PART I, NO.613/19 AUGUST 2014 REPUBLICATION PATENT LAW NO.64/1991 1
OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF ROMANIA, PART I, NO.613/19 AUGUST 2014 REPUBLICATION PATENT LAW NO.64/1991 1 CHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS Art. 1 - (1) The rights in inventions shall be recognized and protected on
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings
SPAIN Question Q229 Title: Spanish Group: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Antonio Castán (President) Alicia Arroyo Isidro José García Egea Patricia Koch Jorge Llevat Manuel
More informationThe availability of injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs
Question Q219 National Group: Austria Title: The availability of injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Peter Pawloy, Christian Gassauer-Fleissner
More informationTRADE MARKS ACT, 1999
GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH A DRAFT BILL OF THE PROPOSED TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 Prepared in the light of the complete report made by the Bangladesh Law Commission recommending promulgation
More informationFrequently Asked Questions. Trade/service marks: What is a trade/service mark?
Frequently Asked Questions Trade/service marks: What is a trade/service mark? Is a distinctive sign that serves to distinguish the goods and/or services of one enterprise from those of other enterprises.
More informationUNITED KINGDOM Trade Marks Act Last updated on 27 April 2017.
UNITED KINGDOM Trade Marks Act Last updated on 27 April 2017. TABLE OF CONTENTS ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I REGISTERED TRADE MARKS Introductory 1. 2. Grounds for refusal of registration 3. 4. 5. 6.
More informationCHAPTER 4 THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT. Arrangement of Sections.
CHAPTER 4 THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT. Arrangement of Sections. Section 1. Application. 2. Interpretation. PART I PRELIMINARY. PART II ARBITRATION. 3. Form of arbitration agreement. 4. Waiver
More informationOF AUSTRALIA PATENTS BILL (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator the Hon John N Button)
1990 THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SENATE PATENTS BILL 1990 EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator the Hon John
More informationSummary and Conclusions
Summary and Conclusions In this thesis, results are presented of a study on the alignment of the European Patent Convention and the Patent Cooperation Treaty with requirements of the Patent Law Treaty.
More informationDahir No of 9 Kaada 1420 (February 15, 2000) on the Enactment of Law No on the Protection of Industrial Property
Dahir No. 1-00-91 of 9 Kaada 1420 (February 15, 2000) on the Enactment of Law No. 17-97 on the Protection of Industrial Property TABLE OF CONTENTS Articles Title I: Title II: Chapter I: Chapter II: Section
More informationAUSTRALIA - Standard Patents - Schedule of Charges
AUSTRALIA - Standard Patents - Schedule of Charges Effective 1 January 2018 Applications 1 Filing non-convention Standard application (filed electronically) 370.00 630.00 1000.00 2 Filing PCT AU National
More informationFinancial Services Tribunal Rules 2015 (as amended 2017 and 2018)
Rule c FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL RULES 2015 Index Page* (* page numbers below relate to original legislation, not to this document) PART 1 PRELIMINARY 1 Title... 3 2 Commencement... 3 3 Interpretation...
More informationQuestionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:
Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Australia... Office: IP Australia... Person to be contacted: Name:
More information2016 Study Question (Patents)
2016 Study Question (Patents) Submission date: 25th May 2016 Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General John OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK, Assistants
More informationIntellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 No., 2013
00-0-0-0 The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Presented and read a first time Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 0 No., 0 (Industry, Innovation, Climate Change,
More informationPrinciples on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property
Principles on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property Prepared by the European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP) Final Text 1 December 2011 CLIP Principles PREAMBLE...
More informationAmendments in Europe and the United States
13 Euro IP ch2-6.qxd 15/04/2009 11:16 Page 90 90 IP FIT FOR PURPOSE Amendments in Europe and the United States Attitudes differ if you try to broaden your claim after applications, reports Annalise Holme.
More information[1] This is an opposed application in terms of section 51(9) of the Patents
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) UNREPORTABLE In the matter between: Case No: Patent 2001/3937 B BRAUN MELSUNGEN AG B BRAUN MEDICAL (PTY) L TO First Applicant Second Applicant
More informationNovartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma Co
This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore
More information[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights
[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: Dominican Republic... National
More informationTrademark Law of the People's Republic of China. Decision on Revising the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China adopted at.
Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (Adopted at the 24th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Fifth National People's Congress on August 23, 1982; amended for the first time in accordance
More informationFailure to adhere to the above can result to the irrevocable lapsing of a patent application.
Postal Address P O Box 13575 Hatfield 0028 Republic of South Africa Docex 219 Pretoria Physical Address Hahn Forum 222 Richard Street Hatfield Pretoria 0083 Republic of South Africa Email: hahn@hahn.co.za
More informationLaw on Inventive Activity*
Law on Inventive Activity* (of October 19, 1972, as amended by the Law of April 16, 1993) TABLE OF CONTENTS** Article Part I: General Provisions... 1 9 Part II: Inventions and Patents 1. Patents... 10
More informationDecision on Patent Law. Patent Act Secs. 104 ter, 123, 128, Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 338 Knife-processing Device
Decision on Patent Law Patent Act Secs. 104 ter, 123, 128, Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 338 Knife-processing Device A patentee whose patent has been regarded as invalid by the courts can only be heard
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings
Question Q229 National Group: Denmark/Dänemark/Danemark Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: Ulla KLINGE, Peter-Ulrik PLESNER, Mikkel VITTRUP, Jakob KRAG
More informationLAW ON THE PROTECTION OF INVENTIONS. No. 50-XVI of March 7, Monitorul Oficial nr /455 din * * * TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Translation from Romanian LAW ON THE PROTECTION OF INVENTIONS No. 50-XVI of March 7, 2008 Monitorul Oficial nr.117-119/455 din 04.07.2008 * * * TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I General Provisions Article 1.
More informationTITLE 26 TITLE 26 26:07 PREVIOUS CHAPTER INTEGRATED CIRCUIT LAYOUT-DESIGNS ACT
TITLE 26 Chapter 26:07 TITLE 26 PREVIOUS CHAPTER INTEGRATED CIRCUIT LAYOUT-DESIGNS ACT Act 18/2001. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title. 2. lnterpretation. PART II DESIGNS
More informationCASE NO: 657/95. In the matter between: and CHEMICAL, MINING AND INDUSTRIAL
CASE NO: 657/95 In the matter between: JOHN PAUL McKELVEY NEW CONCEPT MINING (PTY) LTD CERAMIC LININGS (PTY) LTD 1st Appellant 2nd Appellant 3rd Appellant and DETON ENGINEERING (PTY) LTD CHEMICAL, MINING
More informationINDUSTRIAL PROPERTY ACT, 2010 (Act No. 8 of 2010) INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY REGULATIONS, 2012 (Published on 31st August, 2012) ARRANGEMENT OF REGULATIONS
C.700 Statutory Instrument No. 70 of 2012 REGULATION 1. Citation 2. Interpretation INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY ACT, 2010 (Act No. 8 of 2010) INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY REGULATIONS, 2012 (Published on 31st August, 2012)
More informationARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013)
ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013) 1. Scope of Application and Interpretation 1.1 Where parties have agreed to refer their disputes
More informationHONG KONG Patents (General) Rules as amended by L.N. 40 of 2004 ENTRY INTO FORCE: May 7, 2004 Chapter: 514C
HONG KONG Patents (General) Rules as amended by L.N. 40 of 2004 ENTRY INTO FORCE: May 7, 2004 Chapter: 514C TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1 (omitted as spent) Section 2 Interpretation Section
More informationRevision Draft of the Patent Law of the People s Republic of China (For Deliberation)
Revision Draft of the Patent Law of the People s Republic of China (For Deliberation) (Words in bold font are revised portion) Chapter 1: General Provisions Article 1 This law is enacted for the purpose
More information