SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Advertisement


Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old

It may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet, and a fresh approach is needed, writes Bruce Berman.




Special Reports

Non-Communicable Diseases Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More >


Latest Comments
  • This is certainly a good move, but perhaps this is... »
  • Copyrights are unique works set in a concrete mode... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Developed Countries Close Some Gaps Between Patent Systems

    Published on 13 November 2007 @ 11:10 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Liza Porteus Viana for Intellectual Property Watch
    WASHINGTON, DC – The patent offices of the United States, Europe and Japan have agreed to coordinate work-sharing, improve the quality of patent applications and work on other ways to standardise procedures aimed at reducing the offices’ workloads.

    The memorandum of understanding was announced on Friday at the culmination of the 25th annual meeting of the three offices, known as the trilaterals, last week in Washington, DC. The offices vowed to also coordinate electronic business developments, harmonise search strategies, tools and procedures, and promote dissemination of patent information.

    “Our offices intend to strengthen cooperative efforts in ways that promote innovation and focus on 21st-century realities by reducing redundancies, streamlining processes, and encouraging quality applications,” said John Dudas, director of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

    “Really, I think we achieved what we wanted to achieve,” in the meetings, Dudas told Intellectual Property Watch. “The key for us is to continue to deepen the cooperation. The key is for us is to continue to set goals and meet and surpass them.”

    But on the key issues of harmonising their patent systems, there appeared to be little to report. Ruud Peters, CEO of Koninklijke Philips Electronic, was pessimistic on increased patent harmonisation – a goal many in industry want because it will cut down how many applications they have to submit, and, hopefully, how much time passes before they receive word on whether their innovation received approval. “There we have reached a real impasse and I’m quite realistic, I don’t think we’ll reach one very soon,” Peters said.

    Japan Patent Office Commissioner Masahiro Koezuka said that harmonisation issues such as recognising the first inventor to file and grace periods are major issues to be overcome and are being dealt with in Group B+ meetings, which involves the Group B developed countries under World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) plus some EPO members who are not in the WIPO group. Dudas also mentioned that Group B+ is dealing with these issues, saying there have been successes but other sticking points like grace period.

    Koezuka called for industry to help achieve a breakthrough. “I believe it is important this movement be moved forward not only by the government but industry should also be deeply involved,” he said.

    Alison Brimelow, president of the EPO, agreed that cooperation between the trilaterals can be reinforced through better harmonisation. She continuously stressed the need for increased cooperation between the trilaterals on a number of issues.

    Peters noted that the WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) already harmonises patents and some formalities associated with the process. If everyone complied with the PCT, he said, additional local rules should not be needed.

    Brimelow agreed, saying the trilaterals need to build on the PCT. “I thought that the patent system was about not reinventing the wheel,” she said. “We have the PCT, can we please try to not work around the bits we find uncomfortable?”

    Workloads Rising

    Mounting workloads are a “major threat,” she said, and noted the rapid rise in patenting in “big and powerful” players such as China and South Korea. With that comes a proliferation of additional languages to sort through.

    Brimelow said she hoped the London Agreement, expected to come into force in 2008, would alleviate some of the language issues. The agreement was reached in October 2000 with the aim of creating an affordable post-grant translation regime for European patents. In January, she said, 23 languages will be relevant in the European Patent system. All that is left is for new French President Nicolas Sarkozy to sign it, she said.

    “By golly, it has been a struggle and we know very clearly in Europe, language is a culture issue and we don’t like letting go of our cultural history,” Brimelow said.

    The Indian Patent Office, Brazilian Patent Office, and the Korean and Chinese patent offices are also joining discussions on work-sharing. “This is a club that probably needs to grow,” Brimelow said. “We need to improve how we cooperate to tackle the problems.”

    Both government and industry officials agreed that patent hopefuls can do more to improve the quality in their applications to speed up the process. “The days when auntie cleaned up are gone,” Brimelow said, adding that the trilaterals need to agree on what constitutes a good application. “Clearly, nodding through rubbish is not what we’re about.”

    Dudas told Intellectual Property Watch that in the past few years, the USPTO has seen a higher error rate in the patent process correspond with a higher number of claims being submitted. “We need to have good quality as it comes in the door,” he said.

    In an effort to improve quality, the trilateral offices also agreed to utilise technology-focused cooperation in examination, which will include: collaboration among examiners; development of comparative studies; development of search guidelines; exploration of use of common search tools to facilitate common search techniques and resources; and continual collaboration after the development of products.

    Industry View

    Also during last week’s conference, industry representatives supported the offices’ efforts to reduce backlogs and push patent applications through the approval process faster, before the technologies they’re trying to patent are outdated.

    “To support our businesses, we need to have these patents quickly” and they must be of good quality, Peters of Philips said during Thursday’s public users conference. “We want to know when we can sell innovations.”

    Brad Smith, senior vice president and general counsel at Microsoft, noted that in the past 25 years, global trade has grown five-fold, and global patent applicants have grown by 78 percent.

    “You don’t need a crystal ball of any great magnitude to predict in the decade ahead, we will see double-digit resident patent application growth,” particularly in India, China, and probably a dozen or more other countries, Smith said, adding that the Internet has compounded the speed of globalisation.

    Speed is of the essence, particularly for the high-tech and health-care communities, industry officials said. Information technology spending, for example, will reach $1.2 trillion worldwide this year and will grow 6 percent each year for the next few years, said Robert Holleyman, president of the US-based Business Software Alliance.

    “We know we must have a robust and balanced system that promotes innovation,” Holleyman said “Patents are a tool of the global economy.”

    Not only is the demand for patents increasing, but so is the variety of countries sending in applications. From 1995 to 2005, for example, China’s resident patent applications increased 834 percent, while Korea’s grew by 100 percent.

    Smith and others lamented the lack of a single patent filing system. “If patents are going to a deliver the promise they offer to investors around the word,” Smith said, and for patent offices to “keep their head above water, clearly everyone is going to have to adapt.”

    Marc Adler, president of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, said industry would ideally like to see patent harmonisation in the application, search, and examination process. He said patent applicants can do their part by ensuring their application is consistent with their business strategy, and ensure the patent offices see all the best prior art that’s out there with the application.

    “It is important to not be doing this on the fly while you’re prosecuting a patent application,” Adler said. “If you can’t tell me in one clear, concise sentence, maybe you shouldn’t be filing a patent.”

    Liza Porteus Viana may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Guilherme Patriota says:

      I still don’t know by reading the article what are the gaps between patent systems that have been closed… It seems not that much has been achieved appart from one of the parties going back to building upon the PCT system of WIPO.


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.