tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7037313344553643594..comments2024-03-18T17:10:35.838+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Coming soon: speedypats?Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31799735050284654942013-04-17T19:28:52.325+01:002013-04-17T19:28:52.325+01:00I don't think there is anything fundamentally ...I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with rapid grant. It may be recalled that the 1949 Patents Act, as granted, specified the same 18 month period for putting the application in order that had been a feature of the previous Patents Acts. Due to the huge backlog of applications that had built up during the war, legislation soon had to be passed to allow the period to be extended, and we seem to have got used to a relatively long grant procedure as a fact of life.<br /><br />Germany has quietly provided a rapid grant procedure for its national patents for decades. I say "quietly" because when I was a student member of CIPA, the foreign law lectures only mentioned the deferred examination aspect of German patent law, and I don't recall having seen it mentioned in any text books either. Back in the 1970's when I used to write English-language patent abstracts for "Derwent", I estimate that about 4% of the documents were Patentschrifts that had been granted earlier than 18 months from the date of filing. The earliest I recall was granted 7months after filing. A German attorney once told me that there was no charge for this service: if you paid all the necessary fees on filing, and the search and examination revealed no objections, then grant could follow forthwith without waiting for a separate publication of the application as filed at 18 months. Such applications bear a footnote on the front page saying (in German of course) that the patent is identical with the application as filed.<br /><br />When I was in industrial practice, the fact that competitors were kept in the dark about the details of their own new applications for at least 18 months was seen as a distinct advantage, just as the fact that they were kept in the dark about their competitors' inventions was a hindrance. Does the US still have the statutory bar that required an application to be filed in the US before a patent for the same invention was granted in another country? <br />Ronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81529547626703111702013-04-17T14:53:31.138+01:002013-04-17T14:53:31.138+01:00Superfast grant only seems interesting when your c...Superfast grant only seems interesting when your competitor already entered the market (yet *after* your filing) or you somehow found out he's about to do so.<br /><br />However, isn't a *pending* application often at least as efficacious as a cause of headache to the patent attorney asked to give clearance for a product, at least if the manufacturer is your average NPE (non-pirate entity)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-49749131652745718092013-04-17T14:36:08.953+01:002013-04-17T14:36:08.953+01:00Bloody stupid idea. I think that is plain enough....Bloody stupid idea. I think that is plain enough. <br /><br />This proposal guarantees the grant of invalid patents, particularly in fast moving fields where the normal 18 month publication shadow can hide lots of nasties. <br /><br />Although such nasties might be capable of being addressed in post-grant amendment there could be messy procedural issues: particularly as the person who wants a superfast patent may be precipitated into superfast litigation.<br /><br />Fast patents, like fast foods, may satisfy briefly: however in the long term neither are good for consumer health.Meldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-70372750235352952652013-04-17T14:11:53.635+01:002013-04-17T14:11:53.635+01:00Two words: The Patent Box.Two words: The Patent Box.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com