ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> IPKat

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Intellectual Property Law

: IPKat

Rule 141 EPC: some good news

By Johanna Gibson, David Pearce, Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon.

ADVERTISEMENTS
As from 1 January 2011 Rule 141 EPC, as modified by Administrative Council decision CA/D 18/09, will require applicants to supply search results relating to any priority filings. On the face of it, this adds yet another burden on applicants that they could well do without.  When the IPKat first saw the new Rule, he immediately thought it was quite pointless and unnecessary.  With patent offices around the world becoming increasingly interconnected, wouldn't such an additional requirement being placed on the applicant be a backwards step?  If patent offices can communicate with each other directly, why is there a need to supply information that has been provided by one via (probably at least two) intermediates?  Why not simply cut out the middlemen and send what is required directly, and online?

Fortunately, this does in fact already happen.  In the case of supplying certified copies of priority documents, the requirement under Rule 53(1) EPC for the applicant to supply a copy does not apply where the priority filing was made in Japan, Korea, the US or at the EPO, according to a decision of the President dated 17 March 2009.

Now we can be relieved even before the new year that, in many cases, the new form of Rule 141 will not have any effect on applicants due to another decision of the President dated 9 December 2010.  According to this decision, the EPO will be able to get search results for priority applications filed at the US, UK or Japanese patent office.  The IPKat suspects that others will join, once the relevant agreements have been signed.

The IPKat now wonders what the point was of the new form of Rule 141, if the ultimate aim was apparently to make such a requirement superfluous.  Can anyone enlighten the, now quite puzzled, IPKat?

Full post as published by IPKat on December 11, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 11/02/26 19:03:46)