tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5936574118737052522..comments2024-03-19T12:09:41.188+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Monday miscellanyVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52480469388874663562014-03-19T10:00:52.899+00:002014-03-19T10:00:52.899+00:00Thank you for reokying. However, I understand that...Thank you for reokying. However, I understand that it is intended to comply with current practice as laid out in the references you mention. I am puzzled as to why the black letter law of Rule 19 is seemingly not followed in current practice, namely that it is 2 months from the section 18(4) notification, (seemingly in all circumstances, not just if no section 18(3) report is issued) ? Why is it that this passage in rule 19 as presently drafted ( as far as I understand it) cannot be relied upon (am I missing something?)<br /><br />19. (1) A new application for a patent may be filed as mentioned in section 15(9)— <br />(a)before the end of the relevant period; ........<br />(a)where an applicant is notified under section 18(4) that his earlier application complies with the requirements of the Act and these Rules, two months beginning with the date of that notification; or <br />(b)in any other case, the period ending three months before the compliance date of the earlier application. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-43089110313710533122014-03-18T16:06:54.421+00:002014-03-18T16:06:54.421+00:00It appears that the new rule could just be a codif...It appears that the new rule could just be a codification of current practice. I've updated my article with an excerpt from the Black Book:<br /><br />"If the first report of the examiner, is issued under s.18(4), rather than under s.18(3), a period of two months is set for (a) the possible filing of a divisional application under r.19(3)(a)...If objection under s.18(3) has previously been taken, the notification is simply a statement that administrative grant took place on the date of the notification. From that date, the filing of a divisional application is precluded by r.24(2)(c)", CIPA Guide to the Patents Acts (7th Edition), Section 18.10.ipcopylaurencehttp://ipcopy.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-91804122708170857882014-03-18T15:32:36.319+00:002014-03-18T15:32:36.319+00:00Hi Andy
Thank you for replying
I am not sure there...Hi Andy<br />Thank you for replying<br />I am not sure there is no change<br /><br />see this link http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/uk-changes-divisional-deadline-rules/ <br /><br />and the UK IPO explanatory comment (as follows).....<br /><br />If the earlier application was found to meet the requirements for the grant of a patent after one examination, a period of two months is available for filing a divisional application following notification to the applicant of the successful examination. If the earlier application was found to meet the requirements for grant after more than one examination, that period does not apply and a divisional application cannot be filed once the applicant has been notified that the earlier application complies with the requirements of the Patents Act 1977 and the Patents Rules (see new rule 19(4) of the Patents Rules). <br /><br />Please do let me know, I hope I am simply misreading it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53234876113043378552014-03-18T09:36:19.283+00:002014-03-18T09:36:19.283+00:00It seems that this rule changes nothing, as the Ma...It seems that this rule changes nothing, as the Manual of Patent Practice 15.20 already has this requirement:<br /><br /><i>15.20 ... However, if the first report of the substantive examiner under section 18 is made under section 18(4), a new application may only be filed within two months of the comptroller notifying the applicants that the earlier application complies with the Act and Rules</i><br /><br />The rule change seems to be just implementing this. Previous rule 19 was certainly less than clear on that front!Andy Spurrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87128701551908374422014-03-17T16:09:08.920+00:002014-03-17T16:09:08.920+00:00It appears from the new rule that where a section ...It appears from the new rule that where a section 18(3) report has issued, the deadline for filing divisional applications will be unknown, being the date of notification of the 18(4) report. Will we therefore (like the current EPO situation before it changes soon) have no choice but to advise clients who may be interested in a divisional to file a provisional divisional application alongside or soon after a response to a section 18(3) report is filed, as we will not know when the s18(4) notification will be issued closing off the possibility of divisional applications.<br /><br />This represents a significant burden especially to SMEs, both in the additional cost required, and in the extra costs of monitoring an unknowable deadline and on the potential precautionary measures necessitated by this change to rule 19.<br /><br />If I have misunderstood the changes to R19, please could some kind reader explain.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com