PCT Basics: Obtaining Patent Rights Around the World
|Written by Gene Quinn
President & Founder of IPWatchdog, Inc.
Patent Attorney, Reg. No. 44,294
Zies, Widerman & Malek
Blog | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn
Posted: April 27, 2012 @ 7:35 am
There is no such thing as a world-wide patent, although there is something that approximates a world-wide patent application that can result in a patent being obtained in most countries around the world. This patent application is known as an International Patent Application, or simply an International Application. The international treaty that authorizes the filing of a single patent application to be treated as a patent application in countries around the world is the Patent Cooperation Treaty, most commonly referred to as the PCT. You can file an International Application pursuant to the rules of the PCT and that application will effectively act as a world-wide patent application, or at least a patent application in all of those countries that have ratified the PCT, which is virtually all of the countries where you would want a patent anyway.
So how is it possible that there is a single world-wide patent application but no world-wide patent? Patents are granted by individual countries, not by any international authority. The application process can be streamlined and uniform, but individual countries have different patent laws, which makes a uniform patent granting process impossible. For example, in much of the world living organisms are not patentable, but in the United States living organisms are patentable if they are the product of human engineering. Similarly, in much of the world computer software is not patentable, but it is widely patentable in the United States. Thanks goodness for that because if software were not patentable I’d have to figure something else to do professionally; upwards of 80% of my clients have innovations that relate to software and Internet technologies.
The morale of the story is this: The protection you receive to cover your invention varies not only based on whether the country issuing the patent has a meaningful enforcement mechanism available to stop infringement, but also varies in kind depending upon whether a particular country will even grant a patent on the underlying innovation. When one seeks international patent rights it is typically wise to draft the application so it would be appropriate in the United States. The United States has among the most stringent disclosure requirement (and getting ever more strict), but the United States also has the broadest interpretation of what is considered patentable subject matter, at least currently — despite alarming creep in the wrong direction recently by the United States Supreme Court.
Direct Filing vs. International Filing
The first option many inventors and businesses pursue is to file the first patent application on an innovation in the country in which they reside. This direct filing is accomplished pursuant to the laws and regulations of whatever country the application is filed in. A U.S. patent application is one direct filing. From the U.S. perspective, a filing in a patent office other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office that is not filed pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is considered a foreign application. Direct U.S. patent applications and foreign patent applications are distinguished from an international patent application, which can be filed in any receiving office around the world. For more information on using the international process to file a patent application please see PCT Basis: Understanding the International Filing Process.
If you file either a U.S. patent application or a foreign patent application you can still file an international patent application pursuant to the PCT within 12 months of the earliest filing date. If you file your international patent application within 12 months of your earliest filing date (whether a U.S. application or foreign application) then your international patent application is given priority as of the filing date of that first filing. What this means is that when your application ultimately gets examined substantively it will be considered to have been filed as of the earliest filing date, which means that anything that happens after that date cannot be prior art. Having an early priority date is critical in many cases because without capturing and holding that early date prior art will exist that will make it impossible to obtain patent protection in certain jurisdictions.
Because the earlier filing of a U.S. patent application or a foreign patent application can be used to establish priority for a later filed international patent application that will seek rights in multiple countries, many inventors and small businesses just start with a U.S. patent application. The filing costs are less by just pursuing a U.S. patent application from the start, and you have 12 months to decide if you really want to pursue foreign rights.
Whether you use an earlier filed patent application to support priority for the filing of the PCT Application (as discussed above), or you file an international application without a previous direct filing, you will ultimately need to enter into what is called the “national phase” in every country where you wish to ultimately obtain a patent.
You have 30 months from the filing date of the international application within which to enter the national phase in any countries you wish. At this point in time things can get extremely expensive because you would have to pay national fees to each country, and you would have to obtain translations into the language of each country where you wish to proceed. Your primary patent attorneys can and usually do coordinate international prosecution, but they cannot represent you in countries where they are not admitted to practice, which means you will need separate representation in every country where you want to obtain a patent.
Deciding Where to Pursue Patent Rights
The best course of action for many is to file an International Application and pursue that process for as long as possible. This is particularly helpful if the innovation is early stage or encompasses basic scientific research that will need to be translated into a commercially useful innovation, or scaled in order to be feasible. In these scenarios so much can go wrong from scientific breakthrough to commercially useful invention that it does not make sense to spend vast sums of money early in the process when the invention may still fail to prove itself. Nevertheless, all things being equal it is ALWAYS better to file a patent application early. Early and often is the best filing strategy today, and it will only become more important when the United States moves to a first to file system on March 16, 2013.
Because the international process can be strung out to 30 months from the date of earliest priority filing, that gives you a lot of time to determine whether the invention is worth pursuing, and where it makes sense to seek patent protection. This extended time period is not ideal for inventions with a limited shelf-life, but when the innovation may not prove to be worth the investment to protect you are giving yourself time to determine where you really want to seek patent protection and enter the national phase only in those handful of countries that makes sense to pursue.
Typically there are a logical set of countries where maximum market opportunity exists and you would pursue protection in those countries. Popular places to get protection for many inventions arethe United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan and perhaps Asia as well, including China. While China does not have a stellar record of IP protection yet they are improving, and given the length of the patent and the huge market it might be worth the gamble. India may also be of interest given the size of the market as well, although the standard of living in India is so low for so much of the country it is not really an active market for many inventions.
I realize that I have left out many countries where protection may be advantageous. You really need to allow the innovation to drive the analysis. For example, let’s say that your invention is a universal translator that you can clip onto your ear or listen to through headphones. Let’s further say that the invention takes any language and translates it instantaneously into English. Stop and ask yourself where the market for the invention is. If it translates into English those countries where the native language is English would likely provide the best markets, so you are thinking of the US, UK, Canada and Australia. You may also want to consider large countries where English is not the native language because such a device could almost certainly be useful as a teaching aide to learn English.
Of course, you should also ask yourself whether the invention could be reconfigured so that it could translate into other languages as well, but that is a different topic for a different day.
For more information about the International Patent Process please see:
- Patent Advantage: Laying the Groundwork for International Rights
- PCT Basics: Understanding the International Filing Process
If you are interested in filing an international patent application in the United States, or entering the national stage in the United States based on a previously filed international patent application, please feel free to contact me.
For information on this and related topics please see these archives:
Posted in: Gene Quinn, International, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Basics, Patent Cooperation Treaty, Patent Fools™, Patent Prosecution
About the Author
Gene Quinn is a US Patent Attorney, law professor and the founder of IPWatchdog.com. He is also a principal lecturer in the top patent bar review course in the nation, which helps aspiring patent attorneys and patent agents prepare themselves to pass the patent bar exam. Gene started the widely popular intellectual property website IPWatchdog.com in 1999, and since that time the site has had many millions of unique visitors. Gene has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the LA Times, USA Today, CNN Money, NPR and various other newspapers and magazines worldwide. He represents individuals, small businesses and start-up corporations. As an electrical engineer with a computer engineering focus his specialty is electronic and computer devices, Internet applications, software and business methods.