Posts Tagged: "Patent Cooperation Treaty"

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.

s one of the world’s most vibrant markets, the number of patents granted in South Korea by the Korean Industrial Property Office (KIPO) has been steadily rising. In just a single year, 2018, patent filings increased by nearly 5% over the previous year – and 3.6% of these (47,410 applications) were filed by international claimants. As with any country, South Korea has its own intellectual property standards and requirements. Here’s what you need to know to extend protection of your IP to South Korea. 

This year, Germany shot to the top of Bloomberg’s rankings for the most innovative nation worldwide, breaking South Korea’s six-year winning streak. Germany is a thriving European center for innovation where patent activity, high-tech density, and value-added manufacturing are on the rise. The country is particularly renowned for its modern car technology. It has designed award-winning high-speed roadways, digitally networked mobility, and some of the most advanced driverless vehicles. In fact, German patents for driverless cars have doubled in the last five years, and its top three patent areas in 2017 were Transport (11,000+ patents), Electrical Machinery (7,000+ patents), and Mechanical Elements (6,000+ patents). If you wish to join the trend and patent your innovation in Germany, here is a walk-through of the German patent application process.

Greetings; John White here. It is time for you to “Think PCT” [Patent Cooperation Treaty] anew. If the last thing you remember hearing me say about the PCT was some pneumonic about how to ensure an International Filing Date (English Applicant Requests Priority Designation!), or how to calculate an old Section 102(e) date under the FOoT/DUSE  (Fee Oath Translation/ Designate United States (publish in) English) Rule for the Patent Bar Exam: good, you still remember it! You’ve put off senility a little further by keeping these things circulating in your steel-trap like brain! (Sadly, my voice is probably still rattling around in there as well, I suppose. Sorry about that…) But, let’s move on; it is now time to really understand the use and implementation of a PCT strategy in the modern era. The world is changing rapidly!

Earlier today, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it will no longer accept requests to participate in the IP5 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Collaborative Search and Examination (CS&E) pilot and will no longer accept new international applications. The reason for the USPTO no longer accepting these requests is because the Office has reached the total number of applications it can accept. The operational phase of the CS&E pilot went into effect on July 1, 2018 and was established for a two-year period running through June 30, 2020. During this two-year operational phase, each of the International Searching Authorities (ISAs) participating were quite limited with respect to the number of applications they could accept, which accounts for the USPTO’s inability to accept any additional applications with a full six months remaining in pilot program.

Since 2006, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has participated in the Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program (the PPH Program). Generally, the program is designed to accelerate examination of a given patent application as a result of examination of a corresponding application at another PPH-participating patent office having reached a positive ruling more quickly. If an application is eligible for and accepted into the PPH Program, the USPTO expedites processing of the application. Examiners also have the benefit of drawing from another examiner’s assessment of corresponding claims. Generally, existing data on the PPH Program has indicated that it is associated with increased allowance prospects and decreased examination times relative to non-PPH applications. However, the vast majority of this data is years old (e.g., from 2014). This article will briefly summarize the eligibility requirements for the program and present new data showing favorable allowance and pendency times. However, it will end with a warning: request entry to the PPH program in the United States at your own risk.

Later this year (likely in October), the United Kingdom’s highest court will hear arguments on questions arising in two disputes concerning standard essential patents (SEPs). The UK Supreme Court has agreed to hear appeals in Unwired Planet International Ltd and another v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd and another UKSC 2018/0214 and the joined cases Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and another v Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL UKSC 2019/0041 and ZTE Corporation and another v Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL UKSC 2019/0042. The arguments are likely to focus on one question: can a national court impose a global license in SEP cases? The closely watched appeal will be the culmination of years of litigation between the parties. In the Unwired Planet case, Mr. Justice Birss of the High Court heard five trials on the validity and infringement/essentiality of Unwired Planet’s patents. In April 2017, he then gave a mammoth judgment determining what a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) license would be, and setting royalty rates. Critically, he found that only a worldwide license would be FRAND in the circumstances of this case. The England and Wales Court of Appeal upheld this conclusion, in a judgment in October 2018. The Supreme Court will likely sit in a five-judge panel in a hearing that will last about two days and will be live streamed on its website (the date and panel details have not been confirmed yet). It will hand down judgment later this year or early in 2020. (Ironically, patent specialist Lord Kitchin is a member of the Supreme Court but will not be sitting in this case as it is his own judgment that is under appeal.) You might have thought that—after decades of legal debate and academic writing, dozens of judgments addressing questions such as what constitutes a FRAND license and what are reasonable royalties, and extensive discussions between technology companies—the questions around SEPs would be close to being resolved. But that is far from the case. The outcome of the UK Supreme Court hearing, for instance, will have an impact on negotiations between owners of SEP portfolios and implementers worldwide, at a time when standards are set to become critical to many more industries.

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 USPTO recently announced the implementation of the first phase of the Access to Relevant Prior Art (RPA) Initiative. The initiative is being designed to reduce the burden placed upon patent applicants to comply with their duty of disclosure through the use of automated tools which import relevant prior art and other pertinent information into pending U.S. patent applications as quickly as possible.