Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Ramakrishna
Represents an attempt to pursue a deep harmonization of both the law and practice concerning not just the drafting, filing, and examination of patent applications, but also the cornerstone requirements of patentability.
SPLT negotiations cover three separate legal documents: the draft Treaty (i.e. the SPLT), the draft Regulations under the SPLT and the draft Practical Guidelines
HARMONISATION PROCESS 1. To establish a uniform set of substantive standards 2. Applicability both to national and regional laws & practice, and to the international framework under the PCT
REASON: Dividing Line b/w formality requirement & substantive requirement is not clear which give rise to thriving counterfeit & piracy trade
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Unification of Patent Law Simplify and streamline procedures Reduce costs for applicants Enable Offices and Authorities to meet workload and maintain quality Avoid duplication of work among Offices Meet needs of large, medium and small Offices Balance applicant and third party interests Assist developing countries, especially with IT Interface b/w PCT & PLT
SPLT A.3 : Contracting Party shall apply the provisions of this Treaty and the Regulations: (i) to national applications (ii) to regional applications (iii) to international applications (iv) to patents which have been granted with effect for that Contracting Party. (2) [Exceptions] This Treaty and the Regulations shall not apply to the applications and patents that are prescribed in the Regulations.
Rule 3: Exceptions Under Article 3(2) The applications and patents referred to in Article 3(2) are: (i) subject to Article 1(ii), provisional applications (ii) applications for reissue.
1. Prior Art [A.8(1)] 2. Novelty [A.12(2)] 3. Grace Period [A.9(1)] 4. Inventive Steps [A.12(3)] 5. Sufficient disclosures [A.10] 6. First to file, early publication 7. Interface b/w PCT & PLT 8. Invalidation of claim or patent (A.14) SPLT does not cover post grant phase left to national laws
Paris Convention
National treatment, right of priority & common rules
SPLT (SCP/10/5) Rule 8 (2) Information shall be deemed to be made available to the public, if there is a reasonable possibility that it could be accessed by the public. The reasonable possibility that information could be accessed by the public shall be considered to exist if it is possible for the public to gain access to the content of the information & to acquire possession of that contents.
The term prior art has not been defined - Indian Patents Act, it shall be determined by the provisions of sec- 13 read with the provisions of sec- 29 to 34 of the Act. Advantage of SPLT: 1. Instances Frivolous patents get reduced beneficial for India eg. Neem 2. Removal of Hilmer Doctrine : According to this doctrine the application will have the prior art effect on the date of filing in US only. TRIPS is silent on the issue of Prior Art
Questions
Q1. What does availability to the public mean? If a reasonable possibility to access the information is enough to qualify the information as being prior art, how is the term reasonable possibility interpreted?
Q2. What does the public mean? Could it be only one person? Is it a person skilled in the art or could it be any person? Q3. (1)Whether information disclosed on the Internet constituted prior art? (2)Is the ability to search [the web page] by search engine relevant to the determination of availability/accessibility of Internet disclosures? (3)What would be the sufficient duration on internet that would constitute prior art? (4)Whether e-mails could constitute prior art? Q4 Whether the secret prior art or disclosure in pending application will be considered as prior art for assessing inventive step or not?
Q5 While assessing even the novelty some country consider the whole content of the prior application (US, EPO, Japan)and some just compare the claims of later to the claims of earlier to check if the claims are coterminous (India)?
IF the current draft is adopted - The member states should treat all kind of oral/written information available to the public anywhere in the world as a prior art. - No restrictions of geographical location - No time limit is stipulated for documents or other source of information. - Harmonisation would eliminate the flexibilities that patent offices in individual countries have been exercising while examining patent claims
Questions
What are the contents of the earlier application which should be considered?
These conditions regarding disclosure essentially correspond with the conditions. That have been set out in Article 29 of the agreement on TRIPS. The approach followed in the SPLT would thus directly conflict with the proposals being made by developing countries to the TRIPS Council.
As regards the term 'source', the broadest possible definition was proposed. It was clarified that the term "not only includes other terms used in this context such as 'origin', 'geographical origin', 'country of origin of genetic resources' or 'Contracting Party providing genetic resources,but also any other source such as publications in scientific journals or books, databases on traditional knowledge.
Q1. Where a disclosure was made in non-documentary form, such as by oral communication, by display or through use, what degree of evidence is required to prove the timing and the contents of such nondocumentary disclosure? What are the standards applied under the applicable law?
Advantage of Disclosure To prevent grant of bad patents To promote legal certainty Revocation of erroneously granted patent is expensive It help to build database which act as a aid prior art information Crucial factor in determination of patentability of biotechnological inventions
Introduction of Grace Period ? 12/6 month GP from disclosure to priority date (NOT local filing date)
Q.1 Publication by applicant prior to filing date anywhere in the world may defeat the novelty of same applicant s invention in a country which does not provide grace period ? Q.2 First to file system the prior art is considered to be the disclosure available to the public before the filing date, where as in case of first to invent system the cut off date is the date of invention? Q.3 Should third party rights, as they relate to grace period disclosures, be mandatory, optional or left unmentioned? IF the current draft is adopted
The member countries should have a grace period during the 12 months preceding the priority date (NOT local filing date) of the invention. Many member countries should enlarge the scope of the grace period to include all kinds of the disclosure by the inventor/applicant such as commercial use.
Inventive Steps"
SPLT Art. 12 (3) [Inventive Step/Non-Obviousness] A claimed invention shall involve an inventive step. It shall be considered to involve an inventive step (be non-obvious) if, having regard to the differences and similarities between the claimed invention and the prior art as defined in Article 8(1), the claimed invention as a whole would not have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the claim date of the claimed invention[, as prescribed in the Regulations]. Indian Patent Act - Sec-2(ja) inventive step is one which makes the invention non-obvious to a person skilled in the art. In other words, if the invention is obvious to the person skilled in the art, it cannot be said to involve an inventive step. After the Amendment in 2005, the definition of inventive step has been enlarged to include economic significance of the invention as well.
3. 4.
1. To promote public interest and health concern as provided in A.8 of TRIPS to give right to member countries is prejudice to their national policy 2. Provisions are controversial and political in nature
[Grounds for Refusal of a Claimed Invention] [A.13(1)]: An application shall be refused where the Office finds that such application or a claimed invention in the application does not meet any of the following requirements: (i) the applicant does not have the right to the patent referred to in Article 4; (ii) the claimed invention does not meet the requirements of Articles 6, 11(2) & (3) & 12; (iii) the application does not meet the requirements of the Patent Law Treaty, as implemented in the applicable law, and of Articles 5 and 10; or (iv) an amendment or correction results in a disclosure as prohibited by Article 7(3).
Interpretation of Claims
This particular aspect is related to infringement only. A.11(4) Draft SPLT [Interpretation of Claims] (a) The scope of the claims shall be determined by their wording. The description & the drawings, as amended or corrected under the applicable law, and the general knowledge of a person skilled in the art on the filing date shall[, in accordance with The Regulations,] be taken into account for the interpretation of the claims.
Q.1 Whether for the purpose of determining the scope of protection conferred by the patent, due account shall be taken of elements which are equivalent to the elements expressed in the claims. Q.2 What should be procedures for claim interpretation for special types of claims, such as means-plus-function claims, product-by-process claims, and claims associated with use? Q.3 To Identify the notional person skilled in the art and identify the relevant common general knowledge of that person? Q.4 To Identify what, if any, differences exist between the matter cited as forming part of the state of the art & the inventive concept of the claim? To interpret claims in practice is always a disputable problem for each country to clarify rights & infringement.
1. Developing countries & Least Developed Countries are struggling even to implement TRIPS provisions? 2. SPLT would shrink the flexibilities present in TRIPS? 3. Limits on the freedom of countries to act as they see fit in this field?
1. What are the benefits of harmonisation & what are the costs of not harmonising? 2. Do users regard harmonisation of patent law as an urgent issue which should be resolved in the near future? 3. Is International harmonisation ultimate goal per se or an end in itself ?
BUT?
ronak.karanpuria@gmail.com