Workshop on Erroneously-Filed Elements and Parts

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PCT REFORM: Why It Is Needed and What Lies Ahead Charles A. Pearson Director Office of PCT Legal Administration.
Advertisements

Implementing First-Inventor-to-File Provisions of the AIA By: Scott D. Malpede, Seth Boeshore and Chitra Kalyanaraman USPTO Rules Effective March 16, 2013.
VIEWS ON THE NEW INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY REPORT ON PATENTABILITY PROCEDURE (“MERGER OF PCT CHAPTERS I AND II”): ADVANTAGES, PROBLEMS AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES.
Principles of Good Tax Policy Annette Nellen San José State University.
Current Developments at the PCAOB Ensuring Integrity: 3 rd Annual Auditing Conference at Baruch College December 4, 2008.
Copyright  2003 McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd PPTs t/a Auditing and Assurance Services in Australia by Gay & Simnett Slides prepared by Roger Simnett.
Canada OPICCIPO Office de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada Un organisme d’industrie Canada Canadian Intellectual Property Office An Agency of Industry.
1 Exemption AdministrationTraining Related to Accepting Certificates Prepared by the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board Audit Committee Prepared January.
1 Patent Harmonization: Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) aspect Kay Konishi Kay Konishi, Patents Committee APAA Japan Group APAA 50 th Council Meeting.
ISO STANDARDS TRAINING & CONSULTING
1 The Impact of SAS 112 on Governmental Financial Statement Audits GAQC Member Conference Call January 4, 2007 Presented by Chuck Landes, CPA.
Defining and applying mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Relevant changes to the amount of fine. Defining and applying mitigating and aggravating.
Lawrence T. Welch April, 2003 Company Confidential Copyright © 2003 Eli Lilly and Company FICPI/AIPLA Colloquium Reform of the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
SM © 2012 Patterson Thuente Christensen Pedersen, P.A., some rights reserved - DISCLAIMER: This presentation and any information.
COURSE ON PROFESSIONALISM ASOP #17 - Expert Testimony by Actuaries.
1 Rittenberg/Schwieger/Johnstone Auditing: A Business Risk Approach Sixth Edition Chapter 17 Communicating Audit and Attestation Results Copyright © 2008.
1 Report of Patents Committee Meeting October 19, 2010 Kenji Asai Co-chair of the Patents Committee.
Chapter 11 Contingency. Contingent 1.concept: past transactions or events of a situation, the results by the occurrence of uncertain future events occur.
AMENDMENTS TO THE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE REVIEW GUIDE July 2006 IFTA Annual Business Meeting.
EFRAG & ASB Discussion Paper: Improving the Financial Reporting of Income Tax 9 November 2011.
Conference on the Accession of the European Community to the Madrid Protocol The Accession of the European Community to the Madrid Protocol - the long.
GBLWMP-SLUP Integration Meeting February 4-5, 2010 Sahtu Land Use Planning Board.
NA, Yanghee International Application Team Korean Intellectual Property Office National Phase of PCT international applications April 26,
Materiality And Audit Reporting Audit Report Audit Opinion
The International Patent System July 2016 PCT Rule Changes Matthias Reischle-Park Deputy Director, PCT Legal Division June 28, 2016.
The International Patent System Amendments to the PCT Regulations as from 1 July 2016.
The Insurance Act 2015 and Marine Insurance
Auditing Concepts.
How A Bill Becomes A Law.
PATENT OFFICE PROSECUTION
of Geographic Names in new gTLDs
Auditing & Investigations II
Audit Planning, Types of Audit Tests and Materiality
What is HIPAA? HIPAA stands for “Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act” It was an Act of Congress passed into law in HEALTH INSURANCE.
Dissemination of sensitive group-specific results
Parts of standard unmodified opinion audit report
Chapter 5 Section 5 Mr. Gordon.
Financial Management of Parliament Bill
Best practices in the PCT international phase Session 1
AIPLA Meeting Washington, DC 23 October 2015 Impact of Global Dossier and Harmonization on Patent System- Advantages for All Lawrence T. Welch Assistant.
Understanding the entity
Introduction In the first lesson we demonstrated the following:-
Workshop on Erroneously-Filed Elements and Parts
Principles of Good Tax Policy
Internal control - the IA perspective
Audit Reports Chapter 3.
Standardised PPT on GST
CAMPUT Regulatory Key Topics Meeting Montreal, January 28-30, 2018
Best practices in the PCT international phase Session 2
Erroneously filed elements of international application
Chapter 5 Section 5 Mr. Gordon.
Chapter 5 Section 5 Mr. Plude.
Compliance procedure under the Protocol on Water and Health
The activity of Art. 29. Working Party György Halmos
Alignment of Part 4B with ISAE 3000
Workshop on Erroneously-Filed Elements and Parts
UNION-IP UNION of European Practitioners in Intellectual Property
Japan Intellectual Property Association
UNCITRAL Transparency Rules and the Mauritius Convention
Audit Reports Chapter 3.
Medicines and Related Substances Amendment Bill RETAILERS’ ASSOCIATION Health Portfolio Committee, 6 August 2008.
Review on new matters under 20.5 & 20.5bis
OBJECTIVE AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Lecture 2.
Internal Control Internal control is the process designed and affected by owners, management, and other personnel. It is implemented to address business.
AUDIT REPORT SA 700, SA 701, SA 705 & SA 706.
Exemption AdministrationTraining Related to Accepting Certificates
SA – 700 (Revised) Forming an Opinion and Reporting on Financial Statements SA-701 Communicating Key Audit Matters in the Independent Auditor’s Report.
Jonathan D’Silva MMI Intellectual Property 900 State Street, Suite 301
Presentation transcript:

Workshop on Erroneously-Filed Elements and Parts Jonathan P. Osha First Deputy Reporter General, AIPPI

About AIPPI Politically neutral, non-profit organization formed in 1897 More than 9000 members representing more than 100 countries Aims to represent all user perspectives Focused on harmonization of IP laws More than 700 resolutions have been passed to date

Disclaimer AIPPI does not have a formal position on this topic In response to the request from the Working Group, AIPPI convened a special meeting of its PCT Committee to elicit user perspectives The comments herein reflect only the views of the presenter and certain individual AIPPI members, not the view of AIPPI as a whole

Scale of Problem from the User Perspective Occurrence of the problem is rare When the problem does occur, the ramifications are significant Potential loss of rights resulting from a clerical error Possibility that electronic filing methods can increase the likelihood of making this error Lack of international consistency creates uncertainty Different results in different jurisdictions on the same set of facts

User Experience with this Issue Extremely limited based on consultations to date Study of user experience of entire membership may be useful Users are both applicants and “third parties” so share concern for appropriate balance of rights In general, “form over substance” rules that result in loss of rights from clerical errors, when the intent of the applicant is clear, do not constitute an appropriate balance of rights In general, objective standards are preferred Difficulty with meeting sometimes uneven subjective standards

Case Example Application 1 and application 2 are related Filed as priority applications on the same day Overlapping disclosures but with some differences Overlapping drawings but with some differences International application 1 and international application 2 Filed the same day, claiming priority IA 1 is correct IA 2 filed with specification from PA 2 but drawings from PA 1 Error “easier” to make when most of the drawings are the same (same thing is true for the disclosure) In this example, the error is objectively clear from review of the PAs and the description of the drawings

Objectives from the User Perspective A clerical filing error, when what the applicant intended to file is clear, should not result in a loss of rights The exact path is of less concern to the user, provided that there is a path of some kind That path should be as uniform as possible across the Offices Certainty as of the international filing date must be maintained Users share the concern to prevent late-filed, unsupported subject matter

Elements of a Fair System from the User Perspective Provides a clear path to avoid loss of rights Avoids “form over substance” Whether an element is: 1) entirely “missing” or 2) an incorrect or incomplete version of that element should not be determinative of the substantive relief available The procedures may differ Amendment of the Rules to address these situations separately would add clarity and minimize divergence in interpretations An ability to replace an erroneously-filed element (not actually “missing”) is viewed as preferable to add and later delete approach Whether the application/request includes an incorporation by reference statement should not be determinative of the substantive relief available Requirement does not add to certainty, but creates a “trap” for less experienced applicants

Elements of a Fair System from the User Perspective Protects predictability by providing a clear standard for correction of erroneous filing Objective standards provide clarity and predictability for both applicants and third parties If a subjective standard is employed, “unintentional” is considered a fair balance Protects predictability by limiting correction to pre-publication Fees or other measures to discourage use of these provisions would be reasonable

Thank you for your attention Jonathan P. Osha First Deputy Reporter General, AIPPI