New Zealand Nouvelle-Zélande Neuseeland. Report Q193. in the name of the New Zealand Group by Tim JACKSON
|
|
- Nathan Owen Perry
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 New Zealand Nouvelle-Zélande Neuseeland Report Q193 in the name of the New Zealand Group by Tim JACKSON Divisional, Continuation and Continuation in Part Patent Applications Questions I) Analysis of the current law 1) Are divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications, respectively, available under your national or regional law? Divisional applications are available in New Zealand. The filing of divisional applications is governed generally by section 12(5) of the Patents Act 1953 which provides that regulations may make provision for the filing of a divisional application directed to any part of the first filed application. Regulations 23, 24, and 26 of the Patents Regulations 1954 then allow the filing of divisional applications. Regulation 23 allows divisional applications to be filed for matter included in the first application provided the divisional application is filed before acceptance of the first application. When filing a divisional application it is possible to amend the specification to remove subject matter but it is not possible to add subject matter (as the subject matter of the divisional application must have been included in the first filed (or parent ) application). The divisional application must be made by the applicant of the parent application and practice dictates that the number of the parent application should be indicated in the application. The application form for the divisional application must state that ante-dating of the divisional application is requested. Finally, neither of the applications should include a claim for matter claimed by the other. Regulations 24 and 26 govern the situation where the content of a New Zealand application can be divided if the application claims priority from 2 or more basic applications and the Patent Office takes the view that the 2 or more basic applications are not related. As will be explained further below, divisional applications may be filed in most circumstances without any requirement of separate invention, and without being limited to the originally filed claims. Consequently, New Zealand divisional applications can serve a similar function to continuation applications in other jurisdictions. Although this question is not concerned with patents of addition, it is noted that such patents are also available in New Zealand, and can in some circumstances fulfill a similar function to a continuation-in-part applications in other jurisdictions. 2) What is the justification behind allowing the filing of divisional, continuation and continuation in part applications in your law? Divisional applications are justified on the basis that New Zealand patent law only allows for one invention to be protected in each application. Filing a divisional application allows an additional invention to be divided out from the parent application into a new application without loss of priority right. 1
2 However, case law and Patent Office practice have established that a divisional application may be validly filed and priority retained for any invention which is disclosed in the parent application. 3) Under what circumstances and conditions may divisional, continuation and continuation in part applications (or combinations thereof) be filed in your national or regional patent system? At the time of making the divisional application the parent application must not have been accepted following examination. Acceptance allows for the application to be published for pre-grant opposition purposes. The divisional application must be made by the applicant of the parent application and practice dictates that the number of the parent application should be indicated in the application. The application form for the divisional application must state that ante-dating of the divisional application is requested. 4) Are cascades of divisional, continuation and continuation in part applications allowed, i.e. is it possible to file a divisional, continuation or continuation in part application on the basis of another divisional, continuation or continuation in part application? Yes. There is no limit on cascading of divisional applications per se. However, ante-dating of the divisional to the date of the originally filed parent is at the Commissioner of Patents discretion. Therefore it is possible that in some circumstances ante-dating could be refused and thus the ability to cascade prevented. 5) At what time during the prosecution of the parent application may divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications be filed? A divisional application may be filed at any time before the parent application has been accepted. Acceptance results in the parent application being published for pre-grant opposition purposes. 6) Is it a requirement for filing an application that is a divisional, continuation or continuation in part of an original application (or of another divisional, continuation or continuation in part thereof) that the original application (or the direct parent application, or both) is still pending at the time of filing of the divisional, continuation or continuation in part application? Yes see response to question 5 above. The divisional application must be filed preacceptance. 7) Is it a requirement that the original application (or the direct parent application, or both) is still pending throughout the prosecution of a divisional, continuation or continuation in part application derived therefrom? No. The status of the direct parent application is of significance only at the time of filing the divisional application. After the divisional application has been filed, its parent may lapse without affecting the divisional. 8) Are there any restrictions as to what may be included in a divisional, continuation or continuation in part application? Yes. A divisional application can only include subject matter that was part of the parent application (see response to question 1 above). 2
3 9) In particular, may the description and/or claims contain or claim matter that was not contained or claimed in the original application, or other application from which the divisional, continuation or continuation in part application derives? No. (Note the reference to patents of addition in the response to question 1 above.) 10) Is it possible to extend the patent term in respect of matter contained in the original application by filing divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications, including divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications containing added matter, to the extent the addition of new matter is allowed? A divisional patent has its term determined based upon the filing date of the parent patent application. Thus, it is not possible to extend the patent term in respect of matter contained in an original application by filing divisional applications. 11) Is double patenting permitted or must the matter claimed in divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications be deleted from the claims of the original application, or other application from which the divisional, continuation or continuation in part application derives? Double patenting is not permitted in New Zealand. The ground of prior claiming is available as a ground of pre-grant opposition (section 21) and revocation (sections 41 and 42). Further, regulation 23, which regulates the filing of divisional applications, states that neither of the applications should include a claim for matter claimed by the other application. The claims of the parent and divisional applications will need to be amended to ensure that double patenting is avoided, but subject matter need not be removed from the specifications. 12) Does it matter in this respect whether the divisional, continuation or continuation in part application was filed in response to a restriction requirement issued by the patent granting authority? In the event that a parent patent requires amendment to reduce the number of inventions claimed to one, the deleted inventions can be protected through a divisional application. However, double patenting is still not permitted. II) Proposals for adoption of uniform rules 1) In the opinion of your National or Regional Group, what are the advantages, for applicants and third parties, of allowing the filing of divisional, continuation or continuation in part patent applications? The main advantages for applicants of allowing the filing of a divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part applications are: Protection for more than one invention disclosed in the parent application can be obtained. New matter can be added and claimed. Where, during examination, acceptance for a parent application has not been achieved, the application can be pursued as a divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part application. This is particularly important in jurisdictions where possibilities of amendment may be restricted at later stages of prosecution or appeal. It may be an alternative to appeal. Divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part applications may also be used for delay by the applicant, in order to avoid the final determination of the application. 3
4 We do not consider that there are any advantages for third parties. However, we do consider that allowing the filing of such applications provides advantages for patent examination authorities, as they offer the possibility to avoid unnecessary appeals, and provide a mechanism for dealing with unity of invention and potentially other issues which cannot be fairly resolved by amendment alone. 2) In the opinion of your National or Regional Group, what are the disadvantages, for applicants and third parties, of allowing the filing of divisional, continuation or continuation in part patent applications? We do not consider that there are any disadvantages for applicants. For third parties, the main difficulty relates to delay and uncertainty. If a large number of continuations are pending, for example, then it is complex for a third party to keep track of all the applications. One or more may be rejected, or limited, whilst other still await examination. Divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part applications may be filed purely in order to induce delay and uncertainty. In effect, the application may, by filing divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part applications be kept pending for the whole term of the original parent, creating uncertainty for competitors as to the scope of protection which will be ultimately granted. The uncertainty issue in New Zealand is increased as patent applications are not published until acceptance (i.e. following examination). There is no provision for early publication. In jurisdictions where the term is not limited back to the term of the first parent (as it is in New Zealand), further issues of potential extension of term also arise. 3) In the opinion of your National or Regional Group, should the filing of divisional, continuation or continuation in part patent applications, respectively, be permissible? The opinion of the New Zealand Group is that the filing of divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part applications should be permitted. 4) If international harmonisation were to be achieved in respect of the rules governing divisional or continuation patent applications, what should be the common rules in respect of the circumstances and conditions in which divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications may be filed? The New Zealand Group proposes the following common rules: Any divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part applications are limited in term to the term of the first parent application. The divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part application must be co-pending with its immediate parent at the time it is filed. Each claim of the divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part application is only entitled to the earliest priority date at which the claimed subject matter was disclosed and supported. If the parent has been published, the divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part application must be published shortly after or upon filing. At least one claim in the divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part application must be based on an invention disclosed and supported in each parent from which such status is claimed. The claims of the divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part application should not be limited to the scope of claims present in the parent. 4
5 The New Zealand Group considers that there should be no strict limit on the number of divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part applications that can be filed from a parent. However, a restricted discretion to allow refusal of cascading may be needed to avoid possible abuse of process issues, such as when divisionals are continually cascaded with no possibility of rights being available to an applicant. 5) In particular, should a harmonised system permit the addition in a divisional, continuation or continuation in part application of matter that was not contained in the original application as filed? The New Zealand Group considers that the addition of new matter should be permitted, however, the priority date of any claim which either explicitly claims the new matter, or relies on the new matter to provide adequate support in the specification, should be the date when the new matter was added, and not the date of any earlier application. It is noted that the purpose of continuation-in-part applications, in those jurisdictions where they exist, is to allow the addition of new matter. 6) Should it be permitted to use a divisional, continuation or continuation in part patent application to obtain new examination and decision of an application that contains claims that are identical or essentially identical with claims finally rejected in the course of the prosecution of the parent application? Should there be an exception where case law on the substantive conditions for patent grant of the patent granting authority has changed since the parent application was rejected? Would this possibility adequately take into account the interests of third parties in legal certainty? In the case of an application which has been finally rejected - that is, when all possible patent office and other appeal processes have been concluded - the New Zealand Group does not consider that it should be generally possible to file a divisional, continuation or continuationin-part application with identical claims. However, we would not favour such a rule applying until all appeal processes are concluded. This is because a divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part filing can provide an applicant with an alternative path to grant, or provide further time to overcome objections. In practice many divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part applications are filed at some earlier point in the examination process. Given the wide disparities between appeal processes in different countries, the New Zealand Group does not consider it practical to lay down a general rule. Further, this question may be answered differently depending upon the nature of the rejection. For example, if the issue is one of unity of invention, then in fairness the possibility of filing a divisional in order to meet the final rejection of the parent case should always be available. As to the exception based on changes in the case law, the New Zealand Group sees this suggestion as an example of a situation where the imposition of hard limitations on divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part applications can create unintended practical difficulties for applicants. Finally, the New Zealand Group does not consider that the interests of third parties in terms of legal certainty would be best served by including a case law exception. We consider that the balance between the interests of third parties and the interests of applicants would be best served by early examination and publication of divisional applications. While not based on issues of legal certainty for third parties, the New Zealand Group is, however, of the opinion that divisionals do allow flexibility for applicants where case-law on the substantive conditions for patent grant of the patent granting authority has changed, or has the possibility of changing, since the parent application was rejected. Exactly this situation occurred in New Zealand during the debate as to the allowability of Swiss-form 5
6 claims for example. Cascading of divisionals allowed the grant of patent rights for applications that had previously been refused. 7) Should it be possible to extend the patent term in respect of matter contained in the original application by filing divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications, including divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications containing added matter? The New Zealand Group does not consider that it should be possible to extend the patent term of the original application by filing divisional, continuation, or continuation-in-part applications, whether or not matter is added. 8) In the opinion of your Group, would it be justified to limit the access to filing divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications primarily with the object of limiting the backlog of patent granting authorities? The New Zealand Group is sympathetic to the workload issues of patent examining authorities. The filing of divisional applications for unity of invention issues is based on financial and third party issues. From the financial perspective, permitting multiple inventions in one application will yield lower fees for the patent granting authority. From the third party perspective, the presence of more than one invention in a granted patent makes it difficult to ensure that its actions will not infringe patent rights (although full text patent searching may mitigate this difficulty somewhat). From the patent applicants perspective, if access to divisional applications in response to unity objections is limited, applicants can be greatly prejudiced, as they may be forced to choose between filing more applications than needed in order to avoid possible unity rejections. This will result in a number of separate applications being filed that are directed to similar inventions. As these applications will be otherwise unrelated, it will be more difficult for third parties to address potential infringement issues. In addition the number of basic applications filed is likely to increase not decrease thus any reduction in workload for patent granting authorities will be short lived. In our opinion, such proposed rules would be entirely counter-productive for all parties and the New Zealand Group submits it should not be justified to limit access in order to reduce workload. The New Zealand Group repeats its earlier recommendation and says that the balance between the interests of third parties and the interests of applicants would be best served by early examination and publication of divisional applications. 9) In the opinion of your Group, would it be desirable, in the interest of legal certainty of third parties, if databases of patent granting authorities ensured that a clear link was always indicated between original patent applications and all divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications derived therefrom? The New Zealand Group strongly supports this view. National and Regional Groups are invited to make any additional comment concerning divisional, continuation and continuation in part applications which they find relevant. 6
7 Summary New Zealand has a relatively restrictive approach to the filing of divisional applications. New matter cannot be added, filing of divisional applications must be prior to acceptance, and publication of applications, divisional and non-divisional, follows examination and acceptance. The result is that the content of a New Zealand application can remain confidential for many years by cascading applications and withdrawing the parent applications before publication. The New Zealand Group supports the adoption of permissive, harmonized rules regarding the filing of divisional, continuation and continuation-in-part applications, and see such applications as an integral part of the international patent system. We are opposed to the imposition of rules restricting the availability of such applications in an attempt to reduce patent examining authority backlogs. 7
Working Guidelines. Question Q193. Divisional, Continuation and Continuation in Part Patent Applications
Working Guidelines by Jochen E. BÜHLING, Reporter General Dariusz SZLEPER and Thierry CALAME, Deputy Reporters General Nicolai LINDGREEN, Nicola DAGG and Shoichi OKUYAMA Assistants to the Reporter General
More informationBelgium Belgique Belgien. Report Q193. in the name of the Belgian Group by Nele D HALLEWEYN
Belgium Belgique Belgien Report Q193 in the name of the Belgian Group by Nele D HALLEWEYN Divisional, Continuation and Continuation in Part Patent Applications Preliminary comments The answers to Q193
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 informationStanding Committee on Patents. Questionnaire on the Publication of Patent Applications India Section
Standing Committee on Patents Questionnaire on the Publication of Patent Applications India Section I. Analysis of current law and case law 1. Please provide a brief description of your law concerning
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 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 informationFisher& Paykel Healthcare Limited and the Patents System
2 July 2009 Fisher&Paykel HEALT HCA RE Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited 15 Maurice Paykel Place, East Tamaki P O Box 14 348, Panmure Auckland, New Zealand Telephone: +64 9 574 0100 Facsimile: +64 9 574
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 informationDeferred examination of European patent applications. 2. German delegation 3. Netherlands delegation
CA/51/09 Orig.: en Munich, 06.03.2009 SUBJECT: SUBMITTED BY: ADDRESSEES: Deferred examination of European patent applications 1. Danish delegation 2. German delegation 3. Netherlands delegation Administrative
More informationQUESTION 89. Harmonization of certain provisions of the legal systems for protecting inventions
QUESTION 89 Harmonization of certain provisions of the legal systems for protecting inventions Yearbook 1989/II, pages 324-329 Executive Committee of Amsterdam, June 4-10, 1989 Q89 Question Q89 Harmonisation
More informationEUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION
EUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION POSITION PAPER POSITION PAPER ON THE REVIEW OF DIRECTIVE 2004/48/EC ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS JUNE 2011 EGA EUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION
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 information1. The Japan Patent Office (JPO) fee schedule is changed, effective from. 2. The post-grant opposition system is abolished, and the invalidation trial
2003 AMENDMENT TO JAPAN PATENT LAW April 1, 2004; The Japan Patent Law was amended in 2003. The major changes are: 1. The Japan Patent Office (JPO) fee schedule is changed, effective from 2. The post-grant
More informationQUESTION PAPER REFERENCE: FD1 PERCENTAGE MARK AWARDED: 56%
QUESTION PAPER REFERENCE: FD1 PERCENTAGE MARK AWARDED: 56% Question 1 The invention relates to military use and hence needs security clearance before any foreign filing. Alternatively, first filing can
More information5 Multiple Protection of Inventions
5 Multiple Protection of Inventions From the perspective of helping front runners efforts to obtain multiple protection rights and achieving international harmonization of systems, research studies were
More informationPATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT): BENEFITS AND STRATEGIES FOR APPLICANTS. Seminar on WIPO Services and Initiatives Gary L. Montle Nashville, TN
PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT): BENEFITS AND STRATEGIES FOR APPLICANTS Seminar on WIPO Services and Initiatives Gary L. Montle Nashville, TN April 13, 2016 Topics for Discussion General considerations
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR INQUIRY PRELIMINARY REPORT - 28 November 2008 COMMENTS FROM THE EPO
10.03.2009 (Final) EUROPEAN COMMISSION PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR INQUIRY PRELIMINARY REPORT - 28 November 2008 COMMENTS FROM THE EPO PART I: GENERAL COMMENTS The EPO notes with satisfaction that the European
More informationTitle: The patentability criterion of inventive step / non-obviousness
Question Q217 National Group: China Title: The patentability criterion of inventive step / non-obviousness Contributors: [Heather Lin, Gavin Jia, Shengguang Zhong, Richard Wang, Jonathan Miao, Wilson Zhang,
More informationAttachment: Opinions on the Draft Amendment of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the People s Republic of China
March 31, 2009 To: Legislative Affairs Office State Council People s Republic of China Hirohiko Usui President Japan Intellectual Property Association Opinions on the Draft Amendment of the Implementing
More informationChapter 2 Internal Priority
Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail. Chapter 2 Internal Priority Patent Act Article 41 1 A person requesting the grant of
More informationPERU ANSWERS IN THE NAME OF THE PERUVIAN GROUP. by Maria del Carmen Arana Courrejolles QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PUBLICATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS
PERU ANSWERS IN THE NAME OF THE PERUVIAN GROUP by Maria del Carmen Arana Courrejolles QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PUBLICATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS Questions Groups are invited to answer the following questions
More informationProsecuting an Israel Patent Application and Beyond
page 1 of 11 Prosecuting an Israel Patent Application and Beyond Updated July 2017 LIST OF CONTENTS 1. General Information (page 2) a. Language b. Conventions c. Obtaining a filing date and number d. Excess
More informationPractice for Patent Application
Practice for Patent Application Japan Patent Office Asia-Pacific Industrial Property Center, JIPII 2013 Collaborator: Kiyomune NAKAGAWA, Patent Attorney, Nakagawa Patent Office CONTENTS Page I. Patent
More informationReview of Current Status of Post-Grant Opposition System in Comparison with Invalidation Trial System
Seiwa Patent & Law (IP Information Section) Dated April 29, 2016 Review of Current Status of Post-Grant Opposition System in Comparison with Invalidation Trial System Miyako Saito (patent attorney) and
More informationThreats & Opportunities in Proceedings before the EPO with a brief update on the Unitary Patent
Threats & Opportunities in Proceedings before the EPO with a brief update on the Unitary Patent MassMEDIC Jens Viktor Nørgaard & Peter Borg Gaarde September 13, 2013 Agenda Meet the speakers Threats &
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT (RAISING THE BAR ACT) 2012
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT (RAISING THE BAR ACT) 2012 AUTHOR: MICHAEL CAINE - PARTNER, DAVIES COLLISON CAVE Michael is a fellow and council member of the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMUNITY PATENT CONSULTATION COMPTIA S RESPONSES BRUSSELS, 18 APRIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMUNITY PATENT CONSULTATION COMPTIA S RESPONSES BRUSSELS, 18 APRIL 2006 http://www.comptia.org 2006 The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc. The Patent System in Europe
More informationThird Party Observations, Oppositions & Invalidation Trials of Patents in Japan
Third Party Observations, Oppositions & Invalidation Trials of Patents in Japan Aki Ryuka Japanese Patent Attorney Attorney at Law, California, U.S.A. October 12, 2015 This information is provided for
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 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 informationPatent Cooperation Treaty
Patent Cooperation Treaty Done at Washington on June 19, 1970, amended on September 28, 1979, modified on February 3, 1984, and October 3, 2001 (as in force from April 1, 2002) TABLE OF CONTENTS* Preamble
More informationIP LAW HARMONISATION: BEYOND THE STATUTE
IP LAW HARMONISATION: BEYOND THE STATUTE Harmonisation of the statutes Harmonisation of Patent Office practice Harmonisation of Court practice Dealing with increasing workloads Tony Maschio & John Lloyd
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 informationShould you elect non publication?
Should you elect non publication? Short answer: yes, in most cases, assuming no foreign filing. Longer answer: see below. Jack S. Emery, JD, PhD jack@jacksemerypa.com March, 2013 Under current law in most
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 informationEricsson Position on Questionnaire on the Future Patent System in Europe
Ericsson Position on Questionnaire on the Future Patent System in Europe Executive Summary Ericsson welcomes the efforts of the European Commission to survey the patent systems in Europe in order to see
More informationStanding Committee on Patents. Questionnaire on the Publication of Patent Applications
Standing Committee on Patents Questionnaire on the Publication of Patent Applications Introduction 1. Many of the world's national and regional patent systems provide a time limit by which a patent application
More informationPrivacy Commissioner's submission to the Law and Order Committee on the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill
Privacy Commissioner Te Mana Matapono Matatapu Privacy Commissioner's submission to the Law and Order Committee on the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill Executive
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 informationpct2ep.com Guide to claim amendment after EPO regional phase entry
pct2ep.com Guide to claim amendment after EPO regional phase entry Claim amendments in the EPO Guide to the issues to consider After a PCT application enters the EPO regional phase, and before any search
More information(Acts whose publication is obligatory) concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products
2. 7. 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 182/ 1 I (Acts whose publication is obligatory) COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary
More informationSelection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection
Question Q209 National Group: Title: Contributors: AIPPI Indonesia Selection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection Arifia J. Fajra (discussed by
More informationStudy Guidelines Study Question. Conflicting patent applications
Study Guidelines by Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General Jonathan OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK Assistants to the Reporter General Introduction
More informationDisclaimers at the EPO
Introduction Enlarged Board of Appeal ("EBA") decision G 2/10 (August 2011) sought to clarify a previously existing divergence of interpretation as to the general question of when a disclaimer may be validly
More informationAIPPI REPORT OF THE NETHERLANDS GROUP ON 2016 STUDY QUESTION (PA- TENTS) ADDED MATTER: THE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENTS
AIPPI REPORT OF THE NETHERLANDS GROUP ON 2016 STUDY QUESTION (PA- TENTS) ADDED MATTER: THE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENTS Members of the working group: Jeroen Boelens; Sophie
More informationAIPPI Study Question - Conflicting patent applications
Study Question Submission date: April 30, 2018 Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General Jonathan P. OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK, Assistants
More informationTrade Marks Legislation Review. Legislation Issues
Trade Marks Legislation Review Legislation Issues Version 6 13 October 2003 C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\h.lotus\Recommendation Paper 1.doc Page 1 of 30 C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\h.lotus\Recommendation Paper 1.doc Page 2 of
More informationUnderstanding Patent Issues During Accellera Systems Initiative Standards Development
Understanding Patent Issues During Accellera Systems Initiative Standards Development This guide offers information concerning Accellera System Initiative's IP Rights Policy, which can be found at www.accellera.org/about/policies.
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 informationCandidate's Answer - DI
Candidate's Answer - DI Candidate's Answer - DI Question 1 Deadline for entering European Regional Phase = 31 m from filing date or priority date if priority is claimed (Art 39(1)(b) PCT, R107 EPC). No
More informationManaging costs and timeliness at EPO & UKIPO. Mike Jennings A.A.Thornton & Co October 2017
Managing costs and timeliness at EPO & UKIPO Mike Jennings A.A.Thornton & Co October 2017 Patent attorneys don t like: Excessive official fees such as EPO fees on entry to PCT regional phase may deter
More informationPatent Cooperation Treaty
Patent Cooperation Treaty Done at Washington on June 19, 1970, amended on September 28, 1979, modified on February 3, 1984, and October 3, 2001 (as in force from April 1, 2002) NTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS Article
More information2016 Study Question (Patents)
2016 Study Question (Patents) Submission date: 25th April 2016 Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General John OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK, Assistants
More informationPatents: opposition proceedings and nullity actions a comparison between Europe and Japan
Murgitroyd and Sonoda & Kobayashi present Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4 Contact Patents: opposition proceedings and nullity actions a comparison between Europe and Japan Luca Escoffier Diane Beylier
More informationQUESTION PAPER REFERENCE: FC3 PERCENTAGE MARK AWARDED: 59% six months after the publication of European search report
QUESTION PAPER REFERENCE: FC3 PERCENTAGE MARK AWARDED: 59% Question 1 a) Deadline for validating granted European patent in EPC six months after the publication of European search report 0 b) i) Germany
More informationBASICS OF PATENTS By Howard Cohn Registered Patent Attorney
BASICS OF PATENTS By Howard Cohn Registered Patent Attorney Our legal system provides certain rights and protections for owners of property. The kind of property that results from the fruits of mental
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 informationThis document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
2004R1935 EN 07.08.2009 001.001 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents B REGULATION (EC) No 1935/2004 OF THE EUROPEAN
More informationPresented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012
Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA) Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association May 23, 2012 Overview A. Most comprehensive change to U.S. patent law in over 60 years; signed into law Sept. 16,
More informationCZECH REPUBLIC Utility Model Act
CZECH REPUBLIC Utility Model Act No. 478 Coll. of September 24, 1992 as amended by Act No. 116 Coll. of April 6, 2000 (No. 4/2001 Coll. Complete wording) ENTRY INTO FORCE: May 10, 2000 (except for the
More informationDraft Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection revised version of Rules 1 to 11 of SC/16/13
SC/22/13 Orig.: en Munich, 22.11.2013 SUBJECT: SUBMITTED BY: ADDRESSEES: Draft Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection revised version of Rules 1 to 11 of SC/16/13 President of the European Patent
More informationRestriction: Definition & Characteristics A tool used by the USPTO to limit the substantive examination of a patent application to a single invention
Restriction & Double Patenting Mojdeh Bahar, J.D., M.A., CLP Chief, Cancer Branch Office of Technology Transfer National Institutes of Health U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Road Map Restriction
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union L 251/3
24.9.2009 Official Journal of the European Union L 251/3 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 874/2009 of 17 September 2009 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 PATENTS AND UTILITY MODEL RIGHT 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 PATENTS AND UTILITY MODEL RIGHT 3 Ⅰ. Patents 3 1. Subjective requirements 3 2. Objective requirements 3 3. Procedural requirements 4 Ⅱ. Utility model right
More informationUNIFIED PATENT SYSTEM: A NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN EUROPE
March 2013 UNIFIED PATENT SYSTEM: A NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN EUROPE After four decades of negotiations, on 19 February 2013 24 EU states signed the agreement on a Unified Patent Court
More informationQuestionnaire 2. HCCH Judgments Project
Questionnaire 2 HCCH Judgments Project Introduction 1) An important current project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is the development of a convention on the recognition and
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 informationProcedures to file a request to the SPTO (Spanish Patent and Trademark Office) for Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program
Procedures to file a request to the (Spanish Patent and Trademark Office) for Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program Part I PPH using the national work products Applicants can request accelerated examination
More informationTHE COLORADO CIVIL ACCESS PILOT PROJECT APPLICABLE TO BUSINESS ACTIONS IN CERTAIN DISTRICT COURTS
THE COLORADO CIVIL ACCESS PILOT PROJECT APPLICABLE TO BUSINESS ACTIONS IN CERTAIN DISTRICT COURTS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (LAST UPDATED ON August 26, 2014) This document is intended only to provide
More informationTopic 1: Challenges and Options in Substantive Patent Examination. Lutz Mailänder Head, International Cooperation on Examination and Training Section
Topic 1: Challenges and Options in Substantive Patent Examination Lutz Mailänder Head, International Cooperation on Examination and Training Section Pretoria 14 March 2016 Agenda Challenges of small and
More informationComments on Proposed Changes to Restriction Practice in Patent Applications
Via Electronic Mail Restriction_Comments@uspto.gov Mr. Robert Stoll Commissioner for Patents Mail Stop Comments Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313 1450 Re: Comments on Proposed Changes to Restriction
More informationKorea Group Report for the Patent Committee. By Sun-Young Kim
Korea Group Report for the Patent Committee By Sun-Young Kim The Korean Patent Law has been amended on January 2009 and will become enforceable on July 1, 2009. The amendment of the Patent Law may be summarized
More informationNote: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail.
Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail. (Remarks) Part VIII Foreign Language Application In applying the Examination Guidelines
More informationQUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PATENT SYSTEM IN EUROPE. 1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system?
QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PATENT SYSTEM IN EUROPE Section 1 1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system? - We agree that clear substantive rules on patentability should
More informationStanding Committee on Patents. Questionnaire on the Publication of Patent Applications
Standing Committee on Patents Questionnaire on the Publication of Patent Applications Introduction 1. Many of the world's national and regional patent systems provide a time limit by which a patent application
More informationWIPO Seminar, Geneva, 23 June
The Cross-Border Protection of Intellectual Property and its Relevance for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources WIPO Seminar, Geneva, 23 June
More informationLUXEMBOURG Patent Law as amended by the law of May 24, 1998 ENTRY INTO FORCE: June 21, 1998
LUXEMBOURG Patent Law as amended by the law of May 24, 1998 ENTRY INTO FORCE: June 21, 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE I GENERAL Art. 1. Definitions Art. 2. International Conventions TITLE II PATENTS FOR
More informationStanding Committee on Patents. Questionnaire on the Publication of Patent Applications
Standing Committee on Patents Questionnaire on the Publication of Patent Applications Introduction 1. Many of the world's national and regional patent systems provide a time limit by which a patent application
More informationNews and analysis on IP law, regulation and policy from around the world. For the latest updates, visit
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT >>> News and analysis on IP law, regulation and policy from around the world. For the latest updates, visit www.bna.com International Information for International Business
More informationWHAT IS A PATENT AND WHAT DOES IT PROTECT?
WHAT IS A PATENT AND WHAT DOES IT PROTECT? A patent is a monopoly granted by the government for an invention that works or functions differently from other inventions. It is necessary for the invention
More informationUnitary Patent in Europe & Unified Patent Court (UPC)
Unitary Patent in Europe & Unified Patent Court (UPC) An overview and a comparison to the classical patent system in Europe 1 Today s situation: Obtaining patent protection in Europe Direct filing and
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 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 informationQuestionnaire 2. HCCH Judgments Project
Questionnaire 2 HCCH Judgments Project National/Regional Group: ISRAEL Contributors name(s): Tal Band, Yair Ziv E-Mail contact: yairz@s-horowitz.com Questions (1) With respect to Question no. 1 (Relating
More informationThis document gives a brief summary of the patent application process. The attached chart shows the most common patent protection routes.
The patent system Introduction This document gives a brief summary of the patent application process. The attached chart shows the most common patent protection routes. Patents protect ideas and concepts
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 informationAIPPI Study Question - Patentability of computer implemented inventions
Study Question Submission date: June 1, 2017 Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General Jonathan P. OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK, Assistants to
More informationThe proposed amendments to the Rules of the Boards of Appeal. Patentee s Perspective. Bayerischer Patentanwaltsverein e.v.
The proposed amendments to the Rules of the Boards of Appeal Patentee s Perspective Bayerischer Patentanwaltsverein e.v. 13 November 2018 For discussion purposes only Dr. Hendrik Wichmann, Wuesthoff &
More informationQuestion Q204P. Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement
Summary Report Question Q204P Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement Introduction At its Congress in 2008 in Boston, AIPPI passed Resolution Q204 Liability
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 informationPRE-ISSUANCE PUBLICATION OF PENDING PATENT APPLICATIONS: NOT SO SECRET ANY MORE. Joseph M. Barich*
PRE-ISSUANCE PUBLICATION OF PENDING PATENT APPLICATIONS: NOT SO SECRET ANY MORE Joseph M. Barich* I. INTRODUCTION On November 29, 1999, President Clinton signed into law The Intellectual Property and Communications
More informationLicensing Regulations in Japan in Accordance with Japanese Patent Law
Licensing Regulations in Japan in Accordance with Japanese Patent Law SHIGA International Patent Office Masao Miki Patent licensing activities such as establishing an individual license, consolidated license,
More informationThe Specification Proposed for Grant
The EPO Grant Phase - Briefing te Patents EPO Grant Phase A final stage in the successful prosecution of European patent applications is the issuance by the European Patent Office (EPO) of a tice of Allowance
More informationNEW ZEALAND - Patents - Schedule of Charges
NEW ZEALAND - Patents - Schedule of Charges Including forwarding any examination report 1 Filing Standard application and forwarding the Letters Patent Deed 250.00 800.00 1050.00 2 Filing PCT NZ National
More informationB+/SG/2/10 ORIGINAL: English DATE: 27/05/2015. B+ Sub-Group OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES, WITH COMMENTARY ON POTENTIAL OUTCOMES. prepared by the Chair
E B+/SG/2/10 ORIGINAL: English DATE: 27/05/2015 B+ Sub-Group OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES, WITH COMMENTARY ON POTENTIAL OUTCOMES prepared by the Chair B+ Sub-Group Objectives and Principles, with commentary
More informationSingapore Patents Rules as amended by S 739 of 2014 ENTRY INTO FORCE: Nov 13th, 2014
Singapore Patents Rules as amended by S 739 of 2014 ENTRY INTO FORCE: Nov 13th, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY 1. Citation 2. Definitions 2A. Definitions of examination, search and supplementary examination
More informationR 84a EPC does not apply to filing date itself as was no due date missed. So, effective date for and contacts subject matter is
Candidate s Answer DII 1. HVHF plugs + PP has: US2 - granted in US (related to US 1) EP1 - pending before EPO + + for all states LBP has: FR1 - France - still pending? EP2 - granted for DE, ES, FR, GB
More informationPatent Fees and Pricing: Structures and Policies
Patent Fees and Pricing: Structures and Policies The Output of R&D activities: Harnessing the Power of Patent Data JRC-IPTS 4 th Workshop Nikolaus Thumm, EPO Chief Economist Sevilla 24 May, 2012 Background
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 informationOUTLINE AND EVALUATION OF THE DOUBLE TRACK SYSTEM IN JAPAN--- INVALIDITY DEFENSE IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATIONS AND INVALIDITY TRIALS AT JPO
OUTLINE AND EVALUATION OF THE DOUBLE TRACK SYSTEM IN JAPAN--- INVALIDITY DEFENSE IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATIONS AND INVALIDITY TRIALS AT JPO November 18,2016 Chief Judge Ryuichi Shitara Intellectual
More information