patent cooperation treaty (pct) introduction and future developments oslo, october 2013 claus...

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)Introduction and Future DevelopmentsOslo, October 2013

Claus Matthes

Director, PCT Business Development Division

2

Using the traditional patent system to seek multinational patent protection

Local patent application followed within 12 months by multiple foreign applications claiming priority under Paris Convention:

- multiple formality requirements

- multiple searches

- multiple publications

- multiple examinations and prosecutions of applications

- translations and national fees required at 12 months

Some rationalization because of regional arrangements:

ARIPO, EAPO, EPO, OAPI

0 12

Fileapplication

locally

Fileapplications

abroad

(months)

3

The PCT─ 1970

Basic idea: simplify the procedure for obtaining patent protection in many countries, making it more efficient and economical for:

users of the patent system: makes available a filing tool for applicants for foreign patent filings; and patent offices: makes available a tool for effective processing of patent applications by offices of PCT Member States willing to exploit work done by others

4

PCT Basics Filing Tool for applicants:

Only one application filed, containing, by default, the designation of all States (for every kind of protection available) and usual priority claim(s)

Has the effect of a regular national filing (including establishment of a priority date) in each designated State: the international filing date is the filing date in each designated State

Filed in one language

Filed with one Office

One set of formality requirements

Delays national processing until 30 months from priority date

International reports improve basis for decision making

5

PCT Basics

Work sharing tool for Offices:

Central formality checking

Central international publication

International search report (ISR)

International Preliminary Reports on Patentability (preliminary, non-binding opinion on novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness) and industrial applicability

Chapter I

Chapter II

6

Traditional patent systemvs. PCT system

Fees for:

--translations--Office fees--local agents

0 12

File local application

Fileapplications

abroad(months)

Traditional

(months)

File PCTapplication

12 30

International search report & written opinion

16 18

Internationalpublication

(optional)File

demand forInternational

preliminary examination

File localapplication

Enternationalphase

22 28

(optional)International preliminary report on

patentability

PCT 0

Fees for:

--translations--Office fees--local agents

7

The PCT System

(months)

File PCTapplication

120 30

International search report

& written opinion

16 18


(optional)File




Enternationalphase

22 28


patentability

Typically a national patent application in the home country of

the applicant

8

(months)

File PCTapplication

120 30


& written opinion

16 18


(optional)File




Enternationalphase

22 28


patentabilityTypically filed in same

national patent office--one set of fees, one language,

one set of formality requirements--and legal effect in all PCT States

The PCT System

9

(months)

File PCTapplication

120 30


& written opinion

16 18


(optional)File




Enternationalphase

22 28


patentability

Report on state of the art (prior art

documents and their relevance) + initial

patentability opinion

The PCT System

10

The ISAs are the following 18 offices:

AustraliaAustriaBrazilCanadaChinaChile (not yet operating)EgyptFinlandIndia (October 15, 2013)IsraelJapanRepublic of KoreaRussian FederationSpainSwedenUnited States of AmericaEuropean Patent OfficeNordic Patent Institute

PCT International Searching Authorities

11

Prior art for international search

Prior art:

everything which has been made available to the public,

anywhere in the world,

by means of written disclosure,

which is capable of being of assistance in determining that the claimed invention is or is not new and that it does or does not involve an inventive step,

provided the making available to the public occurred prior to the international filing date.

PCT Minimum Documentation (Rule 34)

12

Documents relevant to whether or not your

invention may be patentable

Symbols indicatingwhich aspect of

patentability the document cited is

relevant to (for example, novelty, inventive step,

etc.)

The claim numbersin your application to

which the document isrelevant

Example: PCT International Search Report

13Example: PCT Written opinion of the International Searching Authority

Patentability assessment of claims

Reasoning supporting the

assessment

14

(months)

File PCTapplication

120 30


& written opinion

16 18


(optional)File




Enternationalphase

22 28


patentability

Disclosing to world content of application in standardized way

The PCT System

15

(months)

File PCTapplication

120 30


& written opinion

16 18


(optional)File




Enternationalphase

22 28


patentability

Request an additional patentability analysis on basis

of amended application

The PCT System

16

(months)

File PCTapplication

120 30


& written opinion

16 18


(optional)File




Enternationalphase

22 28


patentability

Additional patentability analysis, designed to assist in national phase decision-

making

The PCT System

17

(months)

File PCTapplication

120 30


& written opinion

16 18


(optional)File




Enternationalphase

22 28


patentability

Express intention and take steps to pursue to grant in

various states

The PCT System

18

The PCT

19

The PCT in 1978

PCT Coverage Today

=PCT

Albania

Algeria

AngolaAntigua and BarbudaArmenia

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Bahrain Barbados

Belarus

Belgium

Belize

Benin

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Botswana Brazil

Brunei DarussalamBulgaria

Burkina Faso

Cameroon

Canada

Central African Republic

ChadChileChina Colombia Comoros Congo

Costa RicaCôte d'IvoireCroatiaCubaCyprusCzech RepublicDemocratic People's Republic of KoreaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial Guinea EstoniaFinlandFrance,

GabonGambiaGeorgia GermanyGhana GreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuinea

Guinea-Bissau HondurasHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran (Islamic Republic of)

(4 Oct. 2013)Ireland IsraelItalyJapanKazakhstanKenyaKyrgyzstanLao People’s Dem Rep.Latvia Lesotho LiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein LithuaniaLuxembourgMadagascar

MalawiMalaysiaMaliMaltaMauritaniaMexicoMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMoroccoMozambiqueNamibia NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNorwayOmanPanamaPapua New GuineaPeruPhilippines

PolandPortugalQatarRepublic of Korea Republic of MoldovaRomaniaRwandaRussian FederationSaint LuciaSaint Vincent and the Grenadines San MarinoSao Tomé e PrincipeSaudi Arabia (3 Aug. 2013)SenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSlovakiaSloveniaSouth AfricaSpainSri LankaSudanSwaziland

St. Kitts and NevisSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTajikistan ThailandThe former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia TogoTrinidad and Tobago TunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited Republic of TanzaniaUnited States of AmericaUzbekistanViet NamZambiaZimbabwe

148 PCT States

Countries not yet in PCTAfghanistanAndorraArgentinaBahamasBangladeshBhutanBoliviaBurundiCambodiaCape VerdeDemocratic Republic of

CongoDjiboutiEritreaEthiopiaFijiGuyanaHaiti

IraqJamaicaJordanKiribatiKuwaitLebanonMaldivesMarshall IslandsMauritiusMicronesiaMyanmarNauruNepalPakistanPalauParaguaySamoaSolomon Islands

SomaliaSouth SudanSurinameTimor-LesteTongaTuvaluUruguayVanuatuVenezuelaYemen

(45)

PCT Applications 2012

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12

194,400 PCT applications+6.6% in 2012

NL: +14%

CN: +13.6%

KR: +13.4%

FI: +13.2%

JP: +12.3%

87.3% fully electronicForecasting +3.8% in 2013

Trends in PCT filing

0

10'000

20'000

30'000

40'000

50'000

60'000

US JP DE CN KR FR GB CH NL SE IT CA FI AU ES

International applications received in 2012 by country of origin

Top 15 countries responsible for 92.7% of IAs filed in 2012

507,400 national phase entries estimated in 2011 (+ 4.2%)431,800 (about 85%) of NPEs are from non-resident applicants, making PCT NPEs responsible for 54.9% of all non-resident patent applications filed worldwide in 2011

PCT National phase entries—total

USPTO most preferred DO for National Phase Entries; had highest growth among the IP5 Offices (+7.3%) Brazil (+12.6%) and India (+9.8%) had highest growth rates among top 10 Offices

PCT National phase entries 2011—by target DO (1)

PCT National phase entries 2011—by target DO (2)

Top PCT Applicants 20121. ZTE Corporation—CN (3906)*2. Panasonic—JP (2951) 3. Sharp—JP (2001)4. Huawei—CN (1801)5. Bosch—DE (1775) 6. Toyota—JP (1652)7. Qualcomm—US (1305)8. Siemens—DE (1272)9. Philips—NL (1230)10. Ericsson—SE (1197)11. LG Electronics—KR (1094)12. Mitsubishi Electric—JP (1042)13. NEC—JP (999) 14. Fujifilm Corporation (891)15. Hitachi—JP (745) 16. Samsung Electronics—KR (683)17. Fujitsu—JP (671)18. Nokia—FI (670)19. BASF—DE (644) 20. Intel—US (640)

*(…) of publishedPCT applications

Top University PCT Applicants 2012

1. University of California (US)2. MIT (US)3. Harvard University (US)4. Johns Hopkins (US)5. Columbia University (US)6. University of Texas (US)7. Seoul National University (KR)8. Leland Stanford University (US)9. Peking University (CN)10. University of Florida (US)11. Cal Tech (US)12. Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KR)13. Cornell University (US)14. University of Tokyo (JP)15. Yonsei University (KR)16. Isis Innovation Limited (GB)17. Tsinghua University (CN)18. Kyoto University (JP)19. University of Michigan (US)20. Purdue University (US)

Top Government/Research Institution PCT Applicants 2012

1. Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives (France) 2. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Forderung Der Angewandten Forschung e.v. (Germany)3. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) (France)4. China Academy of Telecommunications Technology5. Institute of Microelectronics of Chinese Academy of Sciences (China)6. Mimos Berhad (Malaysia)7. Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale (INSERM) (France)8. Electronics & Telecommunications Research Institute of Korea9. Agency of Science, Technology and Research (Singapore)10. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) (Spain)11. United States of America, represented by the Secretary, Department of Health and

Human Services12. National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (Japan)13. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (India)14. Korea Research Institute of BioScience and Biotechnology15. Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast-Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek Tno

(Netherlands)16. Max Plank Institute (Germany)

32

The PCT─ 1970 to today

*

Share of PCT national phase entries (%)

23.9 25.9 33.3 34.1 39.0 40.0 43.8 47.5 46.4 47.3 47.4 49.3 50.8 53.2 54.5 55.1 54.9

0

25

50

75

100

Dis

trib

uti

on

of

non

-resi

den

t ap

plic

ati

on

s

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Year

Paris route PCT national phase entries

33


34

1. postpones the major costs associated with internationalizing a patent application

2. provides a strong basis for patenting decisions

3. harmonizes formal requirements

4. protects applicant from certain inadvertent errors

5. evolves to meet user needs

6. is used by the world’s major corporations, universities and research institutions when they seek international patent protection

The PCT, as the cornerstone of the international patent system, provides a worldwide system for simplified filing and processing of patent applications, which:

Certain PCT Advantages

35

PCT Challenges

Improving the quality of PCT international phase work products

Building trust between patent offices, so that duplicative international phase and national phase processing can be reduced

Language issues 33% of applications filed in Chinese, Japanese and Korean

Helping developing countries benefit from the PCT 15 countries responsible for 92.1% of IAs published in 2011

Making PCT accessible to applicants of all types from all Contracting States (for example, SMEs)

Helping PCT users stay abreast of new developments and strategies

36


PCT extremely successful as filing tool

Harmonization of formal and procedural requirements (beyond PCT)

National and regional laws

Patent Law Treaty (PLT)

37


However: PCT not as effective as work sharing tool in practice for addressing national quality of examination and (for some Offices) backlogs

PCT allows offices to re-use earlier work (international reports) in a way which increases quality or reduces the amount of work needed to achieve same level of quality

actual extent to which this is done is a decision of the office or State concerned as a matter of policy and efficiency

38

The PCT─ Work Sharing Tool

Expectation was: “flying start” for offices, work should be “rather in the nature of completing, checking and criticizing than starting from scratch in complete isolation”

Reality is: many Offices do start “from scratch”

Perhaps not in complete isolation, but …

39

PCT Roadmap

Needed: change in approach of offices vis-à-vis the PCT system, including a review of national procedures and practices and of what kind of incentives are set to use the system in a way which is beneficial to all

40

PCT Roadmap

Improve quality and consistency of international reports:

The better the quality of the tools (reports), the better for all Contracting States: tools allow them to deal more effectively with requirements of their national laws

The smaller the national examining capacity, the bigger the importance of quality tools

41

PCT Roadmap


Further improve quality management systems of IAs

Chapter 21 of PCT S&E Guidelines

Develop quality metrics for measuring usefulnessManagement of work sharing requires metrics which establish

what can be re-used and its quality

Collaborative metrics study on ISR characteristics

42

PCT Roadmap

Improve quality and consistency of international reports:Explore collaborative search and examination

Collaboration or sharing of final products? Pilot project (EPO, KIPO, USPTO)

Third party observations system Since July 2012

Set up quality feedback system for officesTo come

Record search strategiesPending standardization: making available of search strategies on PatentScope

43

PCT Roadmap


Use of standardized clauses in reports

Improve explanations of relevance of cited documents

Modification of PCT S&E Guidelines

Extend opportunity for dialogue with examiner during international preliminary examination

44

PCT Roadmap

Improve timeliness of actions in international phase

Create incentives for applicants to use system efficiently

encourage high quality applications and early correction of defects and filing of amendments

Improve training for Offices, better coordination

notably for examiners in developing country Offices

Improve access to effective search systems

affordable access to online search systems

45

PCT Roadmap

Improve access to national search and examination reports

PatentScope

WIPO Case

Assist Offices in digitizing national patent collections

46

PCT Roadmap

Where do we stand?

significant progress towards implementing recommendations endorsed by Member States

Major achievement of the process to be seen in more general terms:

Recognition of importance of PCT work product quality

Importance of appropriate integration of PCT work products into national patent granting procedures

Role of PCT in improving the functioning of the international patent system as a whole

47

PCT Roadmap

Role of the PCT in effective dissemination of technical information

Greater understanding of concerns and needs of Contracting States in relation to the quality of international applications and PCT work products

Greater understanding of capacity of Contracting States, to perform their own effective search and examination

greater understanding of the needs for continued technical assistance for developing and least developed countries in this regard

48

PCT Roadmap

Clearly: more work needed!Focus:

QualityCollaborationTechnical assistanceBoth applicant and Office driven arrangements

Work sharing not (yet) a universally agreed concept …

ePCT

Online portal that provides PCT services for both applicants and offices

Available since May 2011

Provides secure and direct interaction with PCT applications maintained by the International Bureau

Applicants may now conduct most PCT transactions electronically

ePCT OverviewApplicant portal development

Single portal for all actions and info, irrespective of responsible Office

Information entered is used directly; no more transcription errors

Live file - always up-to-date

Web filing

Data checks using same functions as IB; always up-to-date

Share drafts in ePCT like a normal IA file - rights carry through to IA

View IA file immediately on filing(*)

Receiving Offices

Direct access to IB+ISA(*) file

Option of using online tools equivalent to RO/IB

Offer e-filing without need to run own server

Alternative to PCT-EDI with built-in local files and records management

International Authorities

Direct access to IB+RO(*) file

Share access to application body, including all updates(*) as soon as approved by RO, IB, ISA or IPEA

(*) feature which would be dependent on level of participation by other Office

PCT Training Options

PCT Distance learning course content available in the 10 PCT publication languages

New: 29 video segments on WIPO’s Youtube channel about individual PCT topics from our Basic Seminar series

PCT Webinars

providing free updates on developments in PCT procedures, and PCT strategies—previous webinars are archived and freely available

upon request also for companies or law firms, for example, for focused training on how to use ePCT

In-person PCT Seminars and training sessions

Thank You!

Claus MatthesDirector, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Business Development Division

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland

T + 41 22 338 98 09; [email protected]; www.wipo.int

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.wipo.int/

patent cooperation treaty (pct) introduction and future developments oslo, october 2013 claus...

Documents

national patent application

international filing

patentability pct

pct system fees

patent offices

traditional patent system

national fees

patentability preliminary