tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post73415115063316166..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: China's patent targets for 2020: what do they say about China and the rest of us?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20624480496676910672015-01-11T16:13:20.474+00:002015-01-11T16:13:20.474+00:00As a significant proportion of consumer goods sold...As a significant proportion of consumer goods sold in the UK has been made in China, filing only in China could well provide Chinese companies with sufficient protection. <br /><br />When I was in industrial practice, the usual company policy was to only file in countries where manufacture of the patented product took place, as it is far easier to take action against a manufacture that an importer or distributor. Perhaps Chinese companies are adopting the same strategyRonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5221604032756401432015-01-09T21:18:46.237+00:002015-01-09T21:18:46.237+00:00MaxDrei,
I use the word "clearly" for i...MaxDrei,<br /><br />I use the word "clearly" for its established meaning and do not (at all) write wondering how MaxDrei will deign to use the word.<br /><br />More to the point, the use of the word is one of emphasis. IF you feel "skeptical" because someone else wants to emphasize a point, that is surely your right. But let's not go over the top and project your habits onto everyone else.<br /><br />The world does fine enough without wanting to use your prescription glasses, thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-35913451799519192942015-01-09T20:27:45.522+00:002015-01-09T20:27:45.522+00:00I'm not a US reader and not all too familiar w...I'm not a US reader and not all too familiar with US patent law, but in <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2151.html" rel="nofollow">MPEP § 2151</a> I find:<br /><br />"As discussed previously, AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) provides that a person is not entitled to a patent if the claimed invention was described in a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication, or an application for patent deemed published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) (collectively referred to as “U.S. patent documents”), that names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Under 35 U.S.C. 374, a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) publication of a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) international application that designates the United States is an application for patent deemed published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) for purposes of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Thus, under the AIA, WIPO publications of PCT applications that designate the United States are treated as U.S. patent application publications for prior art purposes, regardless of the international filing date, whether they are published in English, or whether the PCT international application enters the national stage in the United States. Accordingly, a WIPO publication of a PCT application (WIPO published application) that designates the United States, a U.S. patent, or a U.S. patent application publication that names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), a WIPO published application designating the United States is treated as a U.S. patent application publication only if the PCT application was filed on or after November 29, 2000, and published under PCT Article 21(2) in the English language."<br /><br />So designating the US suffices. Not even a publication in the English language is required. Surprising!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-2645338062321030822015-01-09T15:17:29.731+00:002015-01-09T15:17:29.731+00:00Readers, at 13:27, I erred. Thank you that anon a...Readers, at 13:27, I erred. Thank you that anon at 14:52.<br /><br />The only way I can explain my silly mistake was that I was already thinking that, for China, the USA is the most important foreign jurisdiction to keep free for export and that I was already thinking ahead to what I wanted to write about the AIA "54(3)" provision, which (as I understand it) does not require USPTO entry.<br /><br />But perhaps a US reader can correct me on that point too? I do hope so.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-73867367682631211712015-01-09T15:00:36.467+00:002015-01-09T15:00:36.467+00:00Presumption? When I look at an A (or WO) publicat...Presumption? When I look at an A (or WO) publication I don't know whether its applicant will take it through to issue or not. I don't "presume" it is enabling for what it discloses.<br /><br />Those familiar with drafting for clients who have valuable "know-how" might run the opposite presumption: that defensive publications are of what works whereas those in rspect of more valuable stuff, which are therefore to be run through to issue, are more likely to be reticent about the crown jewels and, instead, effusive with content that appears to be enabling but, in fact, isn't as enabling as it ought to be.<br /><br />Any comment that starts with "Clearly" has me sceptical of the proposition, straightaway. If you feel impelled to write "clearly" that might be because it isn't clear at all, even to you. MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56150588174911692522015-01-09T14:52:45.866+00:002015-01-09T14:52:45.866+00:00In response to MaxDrei - the WO publication alone ...In response to MaxDrei - the WO publication alone does not serve as 54(3) prior art - see Rule 165 EPC:<br /><br />A Euro-PCT application shall be considered as comprised in the state of the art under Article 54, paragraph 3, if in addition to the conditions laid down in Article 153, paragraph 3 or 4, the filing fee under Rule 159, paragraph 1(c) has been paid.<br /><br />On a completely different matter, clients in Japan have informed me that machine translations of their national patent applications have been filed in China on the day of the Japanese publication. These "count" in any general assessment of national Chinese filings and that shows that such numbers, without analysis of the actual cases underlying them, are pretty much meaningless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-14937190317752878222015-01-09T14:26:15.387+00:002015-01-09T14:26:15.387+00:00Should not one be concerned with the presumption t...Should not one be concerned with the presumption that such filings are enabled for the purposes of novelty and obviousness?<br /><br />Clearly, massive filings with no intent to pursue actual patent rights can lead to such abuse and the material filed can just as well be pure science fiction, not fit for denying others actual patent rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87447569529653282612015-01-09T13:27:40.589+00:002015-01-09T13:27:40.589+00:00Defensive publication? Of course! Just ask Japan...Defensive publication? Of course! Just ask Japan about that. It's been policy there for at least 40 years.<br /><br />And as for CN's foreign filing programme, bear in mind that hardly any of China's much-vaunted PCT WO publications are carried forward into the national phase. Why should CN bother, when the WO publication alone serves as 54(3) prior art right back to its CN priority date. Even better, under the AIA, it serves even for obviousness attacks in the USA, as if it had been published on its CN prio date.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31659436828704926232015-01-09T13:04:11.670+00:002015-01-09T13:04:11.670+00:00Perhaps one reason for filing a lot of patents mig...Perhaps one reason for filing a lot of patents might be defensive - to ensure that prior art which is known in China is properly documented, to prevent patent owners enforcing bad patents or at any rate patents which cannot easily be proved to be bad? I have no idea whether this is the case.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01565901126954082709noreply@blogger.com