| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
EPO Novelty Grace Periods & International Exhibitions |
|
 |
| |
Jeffrey Chang, NAIP Editorial; Charl Goussard, NAIP Patent Research |
|
|
|
|
| |
Asian patent applicants looking to enter the European Market often make the mistake of assuming their USPTO experience can be applied to the EPO. But fundamental differences exist in policy, regulations and procedure. Case in point: Grace Periods for invention novelty. In short, the EPO provides no grace period for novelty, so if an invention is disclosed before filing, the EPO will consider it prior art! However if the disclosure was made during an international exhibition the EPO will grant a six month grace period. Which begs the question: what is an "international exhibition"? |
| |
|
>> Read |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
| |
China Revises "Patent-as-Collateral" Registration Law |
|
|
|
| |
On 1 October 2010, a revised version of China Patent Law allowing registration of agreements utilizing patents as collateral went into effect. The law formally establishes the managing authority, procedures and requirements for registration of agreements. The changes also improve protection for creditors and speed up administrative procedures at no additional cost. In addition, during the agreement period, the borrower must also obtain approval from the creditor before SIPO will authorize abandonment or transfer of registration.
The law is intended to improve utilization and capitalization of patents, provide protection to creditors and standardize registration of agreements. The law formalizes a previous one-year trial period, which has attracted about 2000 registrations totaling 25 billion RMB in loans.
|
| |
|
2010/10/01 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
 |
| |
TIPO Introduces Refund of Substantive Examination Fees Program |
|
|
|
| |
On 6 October 2010, TIPO announced a program for refund of substantive examination fees for patent applications which have been designated in a domestic priority claim.
According to Patent Law Article 29 a Taiwan invention patent application may claim priority from an earlier filed Taiwan patent application within 12 months of the earlier application's filing date. When this domestic priority is claimed, the earlier application will be deemed withdrawn after 15 months of its filing date. According to amendments passed on 1 January 2010, if the earlier application is withdrawn before undergoing substantive examination, the applicant may now file for a refund of the substantive examination fee.
|
| |
|
2010/10/07 |
| |
Revised Procedures for Amendments Requests during Invalidation Actions |
|
|
|
| |
Amendments made by patentees during invalidation actions should be in accordance with the provisions of Article 64 of the Patent Act. In the past, to minimize excessive processing delays, if such a request was determined as ineligible, TIPO would not notify the patentee and continue with the invalidation action as originally submitted. According to the new amendments, if the patentees submit incorrect or incomplete amendment requests, TIPO will now notify the patentee of the reason(s) for which the request was considered ineligible and will specify a deadline by which a response must be received. To reduce further delays TIPO will only issue one such notice to the patentee. |
| |
|
2010/09/09 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
Novelty Grace Periods in Taiwan |
| |
Jason Wang, NAIP Patent Engineering Research |
|
|
|
|
| |
In Taiwan, a patentable invention must satisfy three conditions: utility, novelty, and inventive step. Generally speaking, if an invention is known to the public before filing, it loses its novelty. However, under certain conditions, if the disclosure was made by the applicant, he can claim a "novelty grace period" in which the invention is still considered novel and patentable. |
| |
|
>> Read |
| |
Agreement Signed, But Long Road Ahead for Cross-Strait IP Rights |
| |
Jeffrey Chang, NAIP Editorial |
|
|
|
|
| |
On 29 July 2010, amid much political support, political protest and media frenzy over the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, Taiwan and China officials also quietly signed the "Cross-Strait Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Cooperation" (IPR Agreement). |
| |
|
>> Read |
| |
Why the Sun is Setting on Software and Business Method Patents |
| |
Daniel Gross, NAIP Patent Engineer |
|
|
|
|
| |
The highly anticipated Bilski vs. Kappos case was recently decided and the result is... still unclear. But despite some claims that the decision has merely increased ambiguity over the validity of software and business method patents, some, including NAIP Patent Engineer Daniel Gross, believe that the decision is actually the beginning of the end for these types of patents. |
| |
|
>> Read |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
