UKIPO + JPO = faster patents?

Following a collaboration between the Japanese and US Patent Offices, which started in July last year, the UK Intellectual Property Office will be starting a similar "Patent Prosecution Highway" pilot programme with the JPO for one year as from July 2007.

The stated aim of the project is to "improve the quality of patents and the efficiency of processing applications at both offices". Applicants who have received an examination report from either office will be able to request accelerated examination for a corresponding application at the other office, provided they submit search and examination reports. For UK applicants, this may result in grant typically two years earlier than would normally be the case.

The IPKat wonders how many applicants will actually be wanting to take part in this worthwhile project. In his limited experience, applicants tend to want to delay the expensive process of getting a Japanese patent for as long as possible, not to do both at once. We shall wait and see what happens.

Does anyone know how the USPTO/JPO project is going?

More information is available from the UKIPO, JPO and USPTO.
UKIPO + JPO = faster patents? UKIPO + JPO = faster patents? Reviewed by David Pearce on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. If this makes it easier to obtain protection in Japan, then it is a good thing - it is generally harder to get a patent from the JPO than from UKPO/UKIPO.


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.