1

PATENT HARMONIZATIONUPDATE

Samson HelfgottDirector of PatentsKMZ RosenmanNew York, N.Y.January, 2004

41293233

2

Substantive Patent Law Treaty(SPLT)

• First attempts to a Substantive Law Treaty failed mainly due to inability to compromise

• Patent Law Treaty (PLT) on Procedural matters -- adopted in 2000, not yet ratified, but “accepted” as international standard

• Renewed Activities on SPLT

• Last meeting of standing Committee on Law of Patents held in Geneva revealed numerous conflicts

– North-SouthIssue of Genetic Resources and Traditional Folklore

– East-WestIssues of Different Patent Systems in US/EP/JP

• Next Meeting of Standing Committee on Law of PatentsGeneva, May 10-14, 2004

3

Trilateral Activities

• Last meeting held in Japan in Nov. 2003

• Prior to meeting each Patent Office prepared a proposal of a Framework for Harmonization

• The Memorandum of Understanding at the conclusion of the Trilateral Meeting Prioritized Harmonization issues into a first and second package

• First package to produce agreement by May 2004

• Priority to be given to items relating to:

Prior Art

Grace Period

Novelty

Inventive step/non-obviousness

4

Trilateral First Package

Prior art**

Hilmer Doctrine

Anti-self-collision

Prior art effect of PCT Applications in the International phase

Prior art effect of Earlier applications for Inventive step

Grace period***

Novelty**

Inventive step/Non-obviousness**

Sufficiency of disclosure*

Restriction/Unity of Invention

Amendments/Correction

*Under this item, the working group will discuss at least the items regarding best mode, deposit practice, enablement and support requirement, and any further items that the working group may decide to discuss.

**Discussion on double patenting will be included.

***Since it is accepted that the item of grace period and first-to-file/first-to-invent are linked, grace period, although included for discussion in the “first package”, is subject to movement on first-to-invent.

****Under this issue, the working group will discuss claim interpretation during the course of patent granting process, but not during litigation.

Claim Drafting****

5

Trilateral Second Package

First-to-file/First-to-invent

Patentable subject-matter/technical character

Utility/Industrial Applicability

6

Round Table of NGO’s

• Held in London on Nov. 10-11, 2003

• Sponsored by AIPLA & CIPA

• Attended by 24 NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) and a delegation from WIPO

• A consensus felt that we should proceed on a “mini-basket” of issues:

1) First-to-Invent/First-to-File

2) International Grace Period

3) Prior Art

4) Applicability of Pending Applications as Prior Art

7

List of NGO Participants

CIPA- Chartered Institute of Patent AgentsFICPI - La Fédération Internationale des Conseils en Propriété IndustrielleIPO - Intellectual Property Owners Association Patentanwaltskammer(DE)AIPLA - American Intellectual Property Law AssociationIPIC - Intellectual Property Institute of CanadaJIPA - Japan Intellectual Property AssociationCNCPI - Compagnie Nationale des Conseils en Propriété IndustrielleIIPS - International Intellectual Property SocietyIPLA - Intellectual Property Lawyers AssociationIPTA - Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of AustraliaBDI - Federation of German IndustryJPAA - Japan Patent Attorneys AssociationCNIPA - Committee of National Institutes of Patent Agentsepi - Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent OfficeUNICE - Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of EuropeTMPDF - Trademarks, Patents & Designs FederationABA/IPL - American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property LawICC - International Chamber of CommerceAPAA - Asian Patent Attorneys AssociationABPI - Brazilian Association of Intellectual PropertyFICPI - La Fédération Internationale des Conseils en Propriété IndustrielleIPO - Intellectual Property Owners AssociationOCPI - Ordine dei Consulenti in Proprieta Industriale

8

Consensus Views of NGO’s

• First-to-Invent/First-to File (First Inventor to File)–In principle, first-to-file preferable–Aware of political difficulties in U.S.–No US NGO (APIPLA, ABA, IPO, IIPS) at the meeting disagree

on first inventor to file• International Grace Period

–General support–Length of grace period still an issue–Preconditional declarations still an issue

• Prior Art–No geographic limitations should be imposed on where the prior

art could originate–Meaning of “available to the public” still an issue either: as long

as can be accessed or must it be reasonably and effectively accessible without extreme efforts

• Pending Applications as Prior Art–Prior Art date begins at global priority date, not its filing date in

the country–Still in issue are PCT applications, either global priority date or

date of entry into national stage in that country–Secret Prior Art either for novelty defeating alone or also for

inventive step–Whether to require terminal disclaimers for obvious double

patenting–Self collision issues

9

AIPLA Position

• First-to-invent/First-to-File

AIPLA believes that the first to file standard is the best practice for a harmonized patent system.

• International Grace Period

AIPLA supports a grace period that is personal, i.e., which covers pre-filing disclosures made by or on behalf of the applicant, thereby providing appropriate safeguards to applicants, while retaining an appropriate level of certainty and fairness to the public.

• Prior Art

AIPLA supports a treaty having a definition of prior art which has no geographical restrictions, i.e., disclosure anywhere in the world which is reasonably accessible to the public should be considered as prior art.

10

• Pending Applications as Prior Art

AIPLA supports a harmonized patent treaty which would provide that all patents or published applications have a prior art effect from their global priority date or Paris Convention date.

AIPLA supports a treaty providing that the effective global priority date may be used for purposes of both novelty and obviousness.

AIPLA supports a treaty which would eliminate the loss of rights dictated under section 35 USC 102(b), abandonment under section 102(c) and premature foreign patenting under section 102(d)

11

Other Organizations

• Generally, most of the other national U.S. Bar Associations are in agreement, including: IPO, ABA, NAM & BIO.

• Some organizations support these changes for U.S. law even without harmonization.

Next Meeting of NGO’s

• Jan. 2004 in Geneva sponsored by AIPPI

12

For further information contact:

Samson HelfgottKMZ RosenmanNew York, N.Y.ph. (212) 940-8683fax (212) 940-8987e-mail - samson.helfgott@kmzr.com