Boo hoo to you, no new MOU

The IPKat has discovered, via a circular from Ravindran Associates (Singapore), that the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between IP Australia and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) will cease to be operative as of 6 December.  Under the MOU, IP Australia acted as a patent examining authority for Singapore's national examination under Singapore law. Thenceforth Singapore search and/or examination services will now only be provided by the Austrian, Danish and Hungarian Patent Offices [is it mere coincidence that these three jurisdictions are known for their pastries, ponders Merpel?].

IP Australia's website provides a little more information -- but not much:
"... The MOU is a commercial arrangement that has been in place since 1995 and which is renegotiated periodically.

IP Australia has decided to discontinue with current MOU arrangements. ...

The decision not to renew the MOU will not impact on other patent services provided by IP Australia to Singapore or our strong engagement with IPOS. IP Australia will continue with its treaty obligations to act as an International Search and Preliminary Examination Authority for international application’s lodged by Singaporean applicants under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. IP Australia and IPOS will also continue to pursue discussions on regional cooperation for the effective processing of patents to benefit innovators in both countries".
The IPOS website has nothing further to add.

Does anyone know what happened to end this idyllic arrangement? Was it just a matter of money, a lack of synergy, a lovers' tiff, perhaps? The IPKat dearly wants to know.

"Moo" and other animal noises here here
Boo hoo to you, no new MOU Boo hoo to you, no new MOU Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, October 18, 2010 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.