Korea Group Report for the Patent Committee. By Sun-Young Kim

Similar documents
Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Programme between the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and the Korean Intellectual Property Office

AMENDMENTS TO THE SINGAPORE PATENTS ACT AND RULES

Industry IP5 Consensus Proposals to the IP5 Patent Harmonization Experts Panel (PHEP)

APAA Country Report KOREA APAA Council Meeting Penang 2014

The application which is filed with the KIPO and on which the applicant files a request for the PCT-PPH must satisfy the following requirements:

This document gives a brief summary of the patent application process. The attached chart shows the most common patent protection routes.

DKPTO PPH Guidelines for Chinese applicants

Procedures to file a request to the JPO (Japan Patent Office) for Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program

Chapter 2 Internal Priority

Restrictions-permissible number and timing of divisional applications

Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office

Procedures to file a request to the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent) for Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program

Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail.

Attachment: Opinions on the Draft Amendment of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the People s Republic of China

Newsletter A Quarterly Update of Korean IP Law & Policy Autumn 2009

I. Purpose of this document. III. Procedures to File a Request for Preferential Examination under the PPH Pilot Program

Prosecuting an Israel Patent Application and Beyond

Procedures to file a request to the DPMA for Patent Prosecution Highway ( PPH ) Pilot Program between the DPMA and the KIPO

PATENT. 1. Procedures for Granting a Patent

Part I PPH using the national work products from the JPO

Procedures and Requirements for Filing a Request for Patent Prosecution. Highway Pilot Program (PPH) to the National Institute of Industrial Property

Newsletter. The Korean National Assembly recently passed a new bill that implements several CONTENTS KOREAN PATENT ACT PATENT

This document gives a brief summary of the patent application process. The attached chart shows the most common patent protection routes.

3. Trials for Correction

THE IP5 OFFICES AND THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT)

Preamble: viewer providing a 3D effect changed to viewer 4 screen divided into at least two portions retained

Foreign Patent Law. Why file foreign? Why NOT file foreign? Richard J. Melker

Patent Prosecution Under The AIA

ANNEX 1 - (copy of questionnaire as circulated)

Inventive Step in Korea

INVENTION OFFICE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT (RAISING THE BAR ACT) 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 PATENTS AND UTILITY MODEL RIGHT 3

Practice for Patent Application

Post-grant opposition system in Japan.

PRACTICE TIPS FOR PATENT PROSECUTION BEFORE THE USPTO

Understanding Docketing For the Appeal Process In China, Korea, And Japan uithe Reliability of your IP Data your IP Data Integrity: How to Ruin the

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): Latest Trends & Strategies for Applicants

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS IN COORDINATING ACCELERATION OF INTERNATIONAL PATENT PROSECUTION

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AGENCY OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA

Part VIII International Patent Application

Requirements and Procedures to File a Request to CIPO for the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)

PATENT PROSECUTION HIGHWAY

Chapter 1 Overview of Foreign Language Written Application System

FINAL RULES IMPLEMENTING EIGHTEEN MONTH PUBLICATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS

Pitfalls in Divisional Practice and Recent Developments in Japan

Reproduced from Statutes of the Republic of Korea Copyright C 1997 by the Korea Legislation Research Institute, Seoul, Korea PATENT ACT

Section 6 Decision of Dismissal of Amendment. 1.2 Overview of examination procedures concerning decision of dismissal of amendment

Section I New Matter. (June 2010) 1. Relevant Provision

Changes to Implement the First Inventor to File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith. AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

WORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING

Section 5 Exceptions to Lack of Novelty of Invention (Patent Act Article 30)

Supplement No. 2 published with Extraordinary Gazette No. 12 dated 3 February, THE PATENTS AND TRADE MARKS LAW, 2011 (LAW 30 OF 2011)

IPO PCT-PPH Guidelines for Chinese applicants

JETRO seminar. Recent Rule change and latest developments at the EPO:

Chapter 3 Amendment Changing Special Technical Feature of Invention (Patent Act Article 17bis(4))

TRANSFER OF PRIORITY RIGHTS PARIS CONVENTION ARTICLE 4A(1)

SINGAPORE IP LEGISLATION UPDATE

EPO boards of appeal decisions. Date of decision 25 November 1987

Part I - PPH using the national work products from the SIPO

PCT FILING AND INTERNATIONAL PROSECUTION Samson Helfgott KattenMuchinRosenman, LLP, New York, New York

AGREEMENT. between the Korean Intellectual Property Office and the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization

Korean Intellectual Property Office

Session Patent prosecution practice in Japan Tips for obtaining a patent in Japan - Part I -

Patent Prosecution Procedures under the Japanese Patent Law. Sera, Toyama, Matsukura & Kawaguchi

POST-GRANT AMENDMENT JOHN RICHARDS

Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal

GUIDELINES FOR TRANSFERRING PRIORITY RIGHTS

GLOSSARY of patent related terms in the IP5 STATISTICS REPORT 2015 EDITION

PATENT PROSECUTION STRATEGIES IN AN AIA WORLD: SUCCEEDING WITH THE CHANGES

EXAMINATION PROCEDURE

Changes To Implement the First Inventor To File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Final Rules

Procedures to file a request to the SPTO (Spanish Patent and Trademark Office) for Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program

EFFECTIVE DATES OF THE VARIOUS RULES AND REQUIREMENTS

GLOSSARY of patent related terms in the IP5 STATISTICS REPORT 2016 EDITION

Strategies for Expediting U.S. Patent Prosecution. Rachel K. Pilloff

EGYPTIAN PATENT OFFICE

Introduction. 1 These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute

Part 1 Current Status of Intellectual Property Rights

1. The Japan Patent Office (JPO) fee schedule is changed, effective from. 2. The post-grant opposition system is abolished, and the invalidation trial

NEW ZEALAND - Patents - Schedule of Charges

Considerations for the United States

MULTIPLE AND PARTIAL PRIORITIES. Robert Watson FICPI 17 th Open Forum, Venice October 2017

When a request for participation in the PPH pilot program is presented, the applicant must file a free style writing to IMPI.

CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE (BARBADOS)

GLOSSARY of patent related terms in the FOUR OFFICE STATISTICS REPORT 2010 EDITION

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group

INTRODUCTION yearbook of IP-related court cases in the fields of chemistry and biotechnology

The programme commenced on 15 Jun 2009 and was revised on 15 Apr It will continue to be reviewed regularly.

IP CONCLAVE 2010, MUMBAI STRATEGIES WITH US PATENT PRACTICE NAREN THAPPETA US PATENT ATTORNEY & INDIA PATENT AGENT BANGALORE, INDIA

ADDENDUM TO PATENT TRANSFER AGREEMENT

HOW TO EVALUATE WHEN A REISSUE VIOLATES THE RECAPTURE RULE:

Chapter 1 DEFINITION OF TERMS. There are various types of IP rights. They can be categorized as:

PATENT ATTORNEY ACT. [This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 6225, Jan. 28, 2000]

WHAT IS A PATENT AND WHAT DOES IT PROTECT?

Failure to adhere to the above can result to the irrevocable lapsing of a patent application.

New Zealand Nouvelle-Zélande Neuseeland. Report Q193. in the name of the New Zealand Group by Tim JACKSON

CORNELL STANDARD PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR STUDENT COLLABORATIONS (CSP-SC)

GERMAN UTILITY MODEL THE UNDERRATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT DATE: WEDNESDAY 12 NOVEMBER 2014 LOCATION: GLASGOW, UK

11th Annual Patent Law Institute

Transcription:

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 as follows: 1. EASE OF RESTRICTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT OF THE SPECIFICATION AND THE DRAWINGS Before the Korean Patent Law was changed in January 2009, an amendment filed in response to a final office action and an amendment filed within 30 days after filing an appeal against the examiner s final rejection were subject to the following restrictions, even if such amended claims reduced the scope of the claims: (1) The amendment must not substantially change the scope of the claims; and (2) The matters described in the claim(s) after an amendment must have been patentable when the patent application was filed. Accordingly, if an amendment added a matter described in the detailed description to the claims, such amendment may be rejected for changing the purpose and effect of the invention. Under the amended Korean Patent Law, the foregoing restrictions (1) and (2) were deleted. The permissible scope of amendments filed in response to a final office action and after filing an appeal against the examiner s final rejection would be as follows: (1) narrowing claims; 1

(2) correcting typographical errors; (3) clarifying ambiguous descriptions; or (4) amendment after a previous amendment that added a new matter, to revise the claims back to the state before the previous amendment that added a new matter, or such amendment made simultaneously with any one of the amendments mentioned in (1) to (3) above. Under the amended Korean Patent Law, amendments filed in response to a final rejection and after filing an appeal against the examiner s final rejection which reduce the scope of the claims by adding a matter in the detailed description to the claims would be allowed without limitation. Further, amendments which delete the new matter included through a prior amendment would be permitted although such amendment would increase the scope of the claims in form. Such rule will be applied to all amendments submitted on or after July 1, 2009. Accordingly, the foregoing rule will be applied to Korean patent applications and PCT international applications filed before July 1, 2009. However, as the re-examination system will be adopted through the amendment of the Korean Patent Law as described below, the specification and the drawings may not be amended for applications filed on or after July 1, 2009 at the stage of an appeal against the examiner s final rejection. 2. INTRODUCTION OF THE RE-EXAMINATION SYSTEM Before the Korean Patent Law was changed in January 2009, the applicants were required to file an appeal against the examiner s final rejection. Further, in order to have an application re-examined by the examiner, the applicant was required to submit an amendment after filing an appeal against the examiner s final rejection. Under the amended Korean Patent Law, the re-examination system was 2

adopted as a procedure for responding to final rejections. The applicant may choose to request re-examination or file an appeal against the final rejection. A request for re-examination should be filed 30 days after receiving the final rejection. The applicant must submit an amendment of the specification or the drawing(s) when filing a request for re-examination. The scope of such amendment would be limited to the following four cases, as we explained in Section 1 above. (1) narrowing claims; (2) correcting typographical errors; (3) clarifying ambiguous descriptions; or (4) amendment after a previous amendment that added a new matter, to revise the claims back to the state before the previous amendment that added a new matter, or such amendment made simultaneously with any one of the amendments mentioned in (1) to (3) above. If the examiner determines after re-examination that all of the reasons for the rejection have been overcome, the examiner will issue an official notice of allowance of a patent. However, if the examiner determines that there is still a reason for refusal to grant a patent, he will issue another final rejection. If the application is rejected after reexamination, the applicant will have no alternative but to file an appeal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal. The applicant would not be permitted to amend the specification and the drawings at such appeal stage. The foregoing rule will be applied to applications filed on or after July 1, 2009. Accordingly, requests for re-examinations may not be filed for Korean applications or PCT international applications filed before July 1, 2009. 3

3. EXPANSION OF THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FILING DIVISIONAL APPLICATIONS Before the Korean Patent Law was changed in January 2009, divisional applications could be filed only during the period for filing amendments. Accordingly, if an examiner re-examined the application after an amendment is submitted at the stage of appeal against the final rejection, divisional applications could not be filed even if the examiner maintained its final rejection. Under the amended Korean Patent Law, along with the adoption of the re-examination system, divisional applications may be filed (i) during the period for submitting amendments (i.e., the period for filing a response to an office action and the period for filing a request for re-examination); and (ii) the period for filing an appeal against the examiner s final rejection (i.e., within 30 days after receiving a written rejection, which may be extended by two months). Therefore, an applicant may file a divisional application after the examiner has issued another final rejection after re-examination. (Please see the diagram below.) [Prior Korean Patent Law] 4

[Amended Korean Patent Law] The foregoing rule will apply to applications filed on or after July 1, 2009. Accordingly, requests for re-examinations may not be filed for Korean applications or PCT international applications filed before July 1, 2009. 4. INTRODUCTION OF A SYSTEM FOR DISCRETIONARY AMENDMENT BY THE EXAMINER Under the previous examination practice in Korea, the examiners issued an office action even for minor typographical errors in the specification or the drawing(s) so that the applicant may amend the specification or the drawing(s). Under the amended Korean Patent Law, however, if an application may be allowed a patent but for certain minor typographical error(s) in the specification or the drawing(s), the examiner may amend the specification or the drawing(s) at his discretion and issue an official notice of allowance instead of issuing an office action. The foregoing rule will apply to applications for which a decision to grant a patent is rendered on or after July 1, 2009. The End 5