New Patents Rules (for real)

Not to be confused with the proposed new Patents Rules 2007 (mentioned here), some amendments to the current Patents Rules 1995 are to come into effect as of 1 April 2007, courtesy of The Patents (Amendments) Rules 2007.

In brief, the changes are:

  • (i) allowing late declarations of priority under section 5(2B) to apply to international applications entering the national phase in the UK after 1 April 2007;

  • (ii) removing the need to file duplicate copies of documents (Rule 20); and

  • (iii) removing restrictions under which documents are not available for public inspection (Rule 93(4)(a) and Rule 94(5)).

  • These combine the UK requirements under the new PCT regulations coming into effect on the same day, with preparations for an electronic public file inspection facility at the UK Patent Office to eventually bring it into line with that available at the EPO.

    This Kat is reliably informed that the ability to make late declarations relating to PCT applications entering the UK national phase after 1 April will allow pending PCT applications which unintentionally missed the 12 month convention deadline (but included a claim to priority) to recover their priority, at least in the UK. This is, unfortunately, too late to help poor Abaco (see recent post here), but may help others.

    As readers may note from some of the above links, the changes have already been provisionally included on the ukpatents wiki, ready to be fully included when April comes around.
    New Patents Rules (for real) New Patents Rules (for real) Reviewed by David Pearce on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 Rating: 5

    No comments:

    All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

    It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

    Learn more here:

    Powered by Blogger.