Posts Tagged: "PCT"

A large number of patent applications are rejected in the initial stage of filing via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) route. One of the most common reasons for such a rejection is an error in the drawings appended to the patent applications. Notably, patent drawings not only enhance the visual appeal of an invention but also help in better understanding the invention. As per the PCT guidelines, patent drawings should be included wherever applicable. This implies that it is essential to submit the appropriate formal patent drawings with a patent application. Failure to do so can result in patent rejection followed by an office action (OA) from the designated patent examiner. But here are the two key steps for overcoming rejections received on PCT drawings.

Determining where to seek patent rights is an important and expensive decision. If you know you are going to want international patent protection, the best, most cost-effective course is to file directly in those countries. This direct filing strategy does not utilize the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), but instead leverages direct filings in countries of interest. For well established companies in mature markets, this can be an effective strategy. For immature markets, new companies, or even mature companies entering immature markets, it is difficult to know where patent protection will be necessary, which makes an international patent application filed pursuant to the PCT a highly effective strategy.

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) enables applicants to file one application, called an international application, in a standardized format in an authorized Receiving Office, and have that patent application treated as a regular national patent application in all Member Countries to the PCT. The PCT also provides for the establishment of an international search report and written opinion and publication of the international application after 18 months from the earliest priority date. Aside from being cheaper compared to filing directly in every PCT Member Country individually, which would be unthinkably expensive, the applicant has up to 30 months to actually decide where to receive a patent.

For better or for worse, there is no such thing as a worldwide patent. There is, however, something that approximates a worldwide patent application that can ultimately result in a patent being obtained in over 150 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 this single international patent application is the Patent Cooperation Treaty, most commonly referred to as the PCT.

I am going to make a bold statement: every non-provisional patent application for an invention originating in the U.S. should be filed via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) first. Then, after another six months, following the international search, and PCT publication, those who desire U.S. patents should enter the U.S. National Stage. That’s right: every single application, no exceptions. No, I have not lost my mind. Here’s why.

When drafting Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications, or applications intended to be prosecuted abroad, a U.S. drafter inevitably faces the challenge of providing a description in line with the requirements of different jurisdictions. By the time feedback is received from the foreign patent offices, it will be too late to make any adjustments, and important aspects of the invention may inadvertently be lost. The challenge might feel impossible when dealing with the requirements of the European Patent Office (EPO), as the European Patent Convention (EPC) regulations on written description are framed in a way that is fundamentally different from U.S. regulations. For example, the requisites of providing an adequate description and notice of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are framed in the United States as separate requirements (written description and definiteness respectively) with different legal bases (35 USC 112(a) for written description and 35 USC 112(b) for definiteness respectively).

Preparation of the background section of a specification that complies with the requirements of both U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and European Patent Office (EPO) requirements is a classic conundrum for patent drafters seeking to file an application in both jurisdictions via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) or direct filings. In U.S. patent applications, statements made in the background section can be considered an admission of prior art, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify under 35 U.S.C. 102 and regardless of any disclaimer made. Additionally, statements made in the background section of an issued U.S. patent can not only be used against expert testimony that describes the prior art differently and during claim construction, but also can have a limiting effect on claim interpretation. As a consequence, discussion of deficiencies in the prior art can be interpreted as a disclaimer of the related features and therefore can severely (and often inadvertently) limit the interpretation of the claims. In contrast, statements made in the background section of EPO applications that discuss deficiencies and technical problems present in the prior art are expected to be included in order to enable the reader to understand the technical contribution to the art made by the invention as claimed. In particular, according to EPO practice, the applicant is expected to discuss the technical problem solved not just in view of the closest prior art at filing (subjective technical problem), but also, more importantly, in view of the prior art cited during prosecution in the context of the problem-and-solution approach (objective technical problem). Accordingly, applicants drafting applications to be filed at the EPO tend to provide a heavy background section with discussions of cited documents, related deficiencies and problem solved and later adjust it in view of the objective technical problem in view of the objective technical problem arising during prosecution. What constitutes best practice in this scenario and how the two practices can be harmonized is controversial.

The appeal of the PCT process is that it enables patent applicants to file a single patent application and have that single, uniform patent application be treated as an initial application for patent in any Member Country.  This single, uniform patent application is what is referred to as the international application. Filing an international patent application to start the patent process can frequently be a wise move if you are contemplating securing patent rights in multiple countries. It is, however, important to understand that obtaining international patent protection is not cheap. It is also important to understand that the international patent application you file will not mature into an international patent.

The Federal Circuit found that Actelion was required to make an express request to commence early national stage examination. Actelion’s statement “earnestly soliciting early examination,” which made no reference to § 371(f), the PCT, or the national stage, combined with failure to check the box expressly requesting early examination, was an “inconsistent or ambivalent request.” While Actelion was not required to check any boxes, it was still required to make its intentions clear. Thus, the district court did not err in affirming the PTO’s finding that Actelion failed to make an express request for early examination. The Federal Circuit also found no error in the PTO’s determination that the national stage commenced on January 17, 2012, the next workday after a 30-month date that fell on a federal holiday.

Globally, a total of 3.1 million patent applications were filed with patent offices worldwide during 2016, an increase of 8.3 percent over 2015’s filing numbers and the seventh straight year in which saw a year-over-year increase in global patent application filings. About 1.3 million patent applications were filed with China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), a record number of patent applications received by any patent office in a single year. China’s 2016 patent application total is greater than the combined total of patent applications filed in 2016 in the United States (605,571), Japan (318,381), South Korea (208,830) and Europe (159,358). These five jurisdictions accounted for 84 percent of all patent applications filed during 2016.

“Increasing numbers of US operating companies dislike patent protection,” Ding explained to IAM. “[T]he production and manufacture of products are increasingly located in Asia and Asian companies have more and more patents… opportunities are being transferred to the East just like manufacturing was.” * * * Although strong patent licensing activities are surely welcome news to Huawei and the many people employed by that firm, stakeholders in the U.S. patent system likely can’t help but see this as a further harbinger that China’s innovation economy will overtake ours in the coming years.