Friday Foreign Filing Roundup

Hi everyone, here's a look at the foreign filing/patent law news from the week of January 23, 2012:

  • The location of the new European Patent Court (Germany, France or Britain) is delaying progress on the unitary patent.
  • The Intellectual Property section of the State Bar of Nevada is drafting a proposal for Las Vegas to be the site of a new US Patent and Trademark Office.
  • Germany and China launch a new Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program.  Read more from Managing IP (note: subscription or free trial required).
  • You can nominate an individual or team for the 2012 Medal of Technology and Innovation, which is the nation's highest honor for U.S. innovators. 
  • inovia's 3rd annual U.S. IP Trends Survey is closing soon.  Click here to respond on behalf of your organization.

Don't forget to check us out on Twitter @inoviaIP.  Have a good weekend.

Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

Friday Foreign Filing Roundup

Hi everyone, here's a look at the foreign filing/patent law news from the week of January 16, 2012:

  • The USPTO issued a report on their study of international patent protection for small businesses.  The findings are not news to us, but reiterate that international patenting costs are often substantial.  As a result, small businesses may not be obtaining international patent protection as frequently as large companies.  Read our blog article on the topic or download the full report here.
  • The Patentology blog posted a good overview of disclosure grace periods around the world.
  • Our friends at Technology Transfer Tactics posted a great case study on how the BYU Technology Transfer Office cut foreign filing costs through fixed-fee negotiations and, in turn, are able to file more patent applications each year.  This is music to our ears!  Paying low, fixed fees for foreign filing is one of the main tenets of our business.  We work with a number of universities who have been able to achieve this and also have streamlined their internal processes by using our foreign filing platform.
  • Is accelerated examination at the USPTO worth it?  IPWatchdog takes a look.
  • Applications filed with the EPO were up 3% in 2011.  Filings from the U.S. decreased, while filings from Japan and China increased.  Get more EPO filing stats here.

Don't forget to follow us on Twitter and share news from your country below.  Have a great weekend!

Tags: | Leave a comment

USPTO Releases Congressional Report on International Patent Protections for Small Businesses

As mandated by the America Invents Act, on January 13, 2012, the USPTO delivered to Congress their study on International Patent Protections for Small Businesses. Though its goals were certainly ambitious and commendable, review of the report indicates that, ultimately, very little was accomplished in terms of benefiting the individual inventor or small business applicant.

The first portion of the report reiterates what most of us know already. Some of these “findings” include:

  • Patenting can be important to the competitiveness of small businesses;
  • Patent protection abroad opens opportunities for successful entry into global markets;
  • Small businesses may be obtaining patent protection abroad less frequently than large companies;
  • International patenting costs are often substantial, and
  • Patenting expenses often occur early in the life of small businesses and are difficult to fund.

The USPTO then offers a few recommendations for aiding small businesses in obtaining international patent protection. The recommendations include diplomatic discussions to reduce foreign patent filing fees, increased IP education programs for small businesses, and a general objective to gather more information on ways to help the small inventor. Unfortunately, the report found little support for the proposal with the most immediate impact to small businesses - direct subsidizing of patent costs. It will be interesting to see what impact, if any, these propositions will provide for the small applicant.

As the report indicates, foreign patent filing costs can be expensive. As a reminder, inovia is often able to reduce the cost of foreign filing by 20-50%. Create a free account to compare our costs for PCT national stage entry or European validation.

Tags: | 1 Comment

Friday Foreign Filing Roundup

Here's a look at the foreign filing/patent law news from the week of January 9, 2012:

  • The USPTO announced that they will open a 31,000 square foot satellite office in Detroit, which is expected to create more than 100 new jobs in its first year.
  • Here's an interesting article comparing a patent translation done by Google Translate vs. a translation done by Bing Translator.   Neither service is designed to handle technical documents.
  • Fast Company quantifies the effects of U.S. patent reform. 
  • Italy is now willing to join the unified EU patent system, leaving Spain as the only opponent. 
  • IBM gained 6,180 patents in 2011 - marking the company's 19th straight year on top.  Samsung was second and Canon replaced Microsoft as third.
  • We opened our third annual survey of the foreign filing strategy of U.S. patentees.  Click here to answer on behalf of your company. 

Don't forget to share news from your country below and follow us on Twitter.  Have a great weekend!

Tags: , , | Leave a comment

2012 U.S. IP Trends Survey Now Open

inovia's third annual survey of the foreign filing strategy of U.S. patent owners is now open.  If you'd like to take the survey on behalf of your company or university, please visit http://bit.ly/AiagFh.  It should take between 5 and 15 minutes to complete and you'll receive a complimentary copy of the final report in a few weeks.

By way of background, you can download the 2011 report here.

Tags: , | Leave a comment

Top National Stage Entry Countries for 2011, By Industry

We previously ranked our clients' top national stage filing destinations of 2011. Here, we list the most popular countries based on industry type:

Business/Finance
1. China
2. Japan
3. South Korea
4. Australia, Europe
5. Brazil

Chemical/Materials
1. China
2. India
3. Australia
4. Mexico
5. Japan

Consumer Goods
1. China
2. India
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Europe

Electrical/Electronics
1. China
2. India
3. Europe
4. South Korea
5. Mexico

IT/Software/Media
1. China
2. India
3. South Korea, Australia
4. Europe
5. New Zealand

Mechanical/Engineering
1. Brazil
2. China
3. Russia
4. India
5. Canada

Pharmaceuticals/Biotech
1. China
2. Canada
3. India, Japan
4. Brazil, South Korea
5. Australia

You can compare these results to the 2010 list here. We’ve commented before about the popularity of China with patent applicants. This growth is clearly reflected here, with China as the top filing destination for six of the seven industry types (and second most popular for mechanical/engineering-related inventions).

Significant increases were also seen throughout all industries in Indian filings. In 2010, India only appeared in three industry types, ranking no higher than third. In 2011, however, India ranked among the top for six of the seven industry types, even placing second in four of them.

Do you have applications entering the national stage in 2012? If so, where do these countries rank in importance in your filing strategy? You can also register for an account with us to create instant and accurate cost estimates for your PCT application.

Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

Friday Foreign Filing Roundup

Happy Friday and happy New Year!  Here's a look at the foreign filing/patent law news from the first week of 2012:

  • USPTO Director David Kappos discusses what 2012 may hold in his latest blog article.  The themes are progress, harmonization and technology.
  • The USPTO also reviewed their Track 1 examination program (paying an additional fee to speed up examination).  1,218 of the 1,231 requests of the prioritized examination (that have been decided) were granted.
  • China surpasses the U.S. and Japan as top patent filer.
  • We ranked our top national stage entry countries for 2011.
  • Robert Sayre of Modern Times Legal wrote a guest post providing insight into patent practice at the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization.

Don't forget to follow us on Twitter and share your feedback below.  Have a great weekend!

Tags: , , | Leave a comment

Top National Stage Entry Countries for 2011

Happy New Year everyone! It’s become an annual tradition for us to take a look back at the top national phase filing destinations for our clients from the past year.

inovia was ranked the top PCT national phase filing firm in the US (and third in the world) last year by Managing Intellectual Property magazine. Here’s where our clients filed their applications in 2011:
1. China – 12%
2. India – 10%
3. Japan, Brazil and Canada – 8% each
4. Australia and Europe – 7%
5. Russia and South Korea – 6% each
6. Mexico – 5%
7. *USA – 4%

<4% - Singapore, South Africa, New Zealand, Israel (each 2%)

[*Note that roughly 75% of our clientele and/or their outside counsel are US-based entities, so the US itself ranks lower as a foreign filing destination.]

A few interesting developments arise when comparing these statistics with those of 2010. China retains its position as the top filing destination for our clients, holding steady at 12%. India experienced a significant jump in 2011 from 4th to 2nd place (8% vs 10%), a good sign of its improving IP laws and emergence as an important market and innovation/manufacturing center. For the second year in a row, European filings have declined (a reflection of the high filing and prosecution costs in the EPO perhaps?).

Do you have a PCT national phase filing deadline in 2012? Register for a free account and use our 1-click quote tool to get an accurate estimate of your filing costs.

Tags: , , , | 2 Comments

Inside Perspective on Patenting at the African Regional Intellectual Property Office

Guest article by Robert J. Sayre of Modern Times Legal.

Headquartered in Harare, Zimbabwe, the African Regional Intellectual Property Office (ARIPO) may be perceived by many practitioners through a shroud of mystery—admittedly, that was my view when I first visited four years ago for a patent-drafting workshop jointly sponsored by ARIPO and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Having now visited Zimbabwe three times and met repeatedly with ARIPO officials and examiners, I hope to share some insights here that will shed some light on the nature of ARIPO patent practice.

 MG 16691
WIPO-ARIPO 2009 workshop participants and ARIPO officials in front of ARIPO headquarters (Robert is front right)

Starting with a bit of background, 17 ARIPO member states (collectively home to more than 200 million people and many with much higher economic growth rates than those of developed countries) are subject to the Harare protocol, which empowers ARIPO to receive and process patent and industrial design applications on their behalf. Though as in Europe with the European Patent Office (EPO), there is no ARIPO patent with region-wide effect, rather ARIPO provides an avenue for issuance of national patents in the member states. ARIPO business is conducted in English, and English is a primary language for most, though not all, ARIPO member states. Similarly, many, though not all, ARIPO members were once British colonies, while many of the former French colonies belong to Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OAPI). My understanding is that patenting activity is much higher at ARIPO than at OAPI, particularly as ARIPO is consistently adding more members at the rate of about one or two new countries per year.

 MG 15881
ARIPO Director General Gift Sibanda

Unlike the patent offices of many other developing countries and regions, ARIPO conducts substantive patent examination (actively evaluating novelty, inventive step and other substantive patentability requirements); and each ARIPO examiner (drawn from among the cream of the crop across ARIPO member states) that I have met has had solid technical training, a thorough understanding of patent law, a keen analytical mind, remarkable dedication, and a very personable demeanor. Assuming they could adjust to a much larger facility and organization, I do not doubt that ARIPO examiners would feel at home and fit right in at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), European Patent Office (EPO) or other major patent office. One ARIPO patent examiner from a large east African state never ceases to astound me with his encyclopedic knowledge of patent history; and he seems to thoroughly know all of it forward and backward from 15th century Venice to present-day practice at the USPTO, EPO, and elsewhere. Curious as to how he amassed such a deep knowledge and understanding, I asked him where he studied, though he acknowledged that most of his knowledge of patent history and theory was derived from vociferous reading of patent literature.

Currently, about 95% of ARIPO patent applications are filed by applicants from non-ARIPO-member states. Perusing the ARIPO patent register, you will see, in particular, many patent applications filed by U.S. and European based pharmaceutical companies that are supplying a variety of essential drugs across the continent. Top ARIPO patent applicants found when searching ARIPO patent publications via WIPO’s Patentscope database include the following (some of which are related companies):

Pfizer, Inc. (117 ARIPO patents)
Smithkline Beecham, P.L.C. (66 ARIPO patents)
Pfizer Products, Inc. (64 ARIPO patents)
Glaxo Group, Limited (49 ARIPO patents)
Smithkline Beecham Corporation (41 ARIPO patents)
Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie (41 ARIPO patents)
Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V. (36 ARIPO patents)
The Wellcome Foundation Limited (29 ARIPO patents)
Societe des Produits Nestle, S.A. (28 ARIPO patents)
Aventis Pharma, S.A. (25 ARIPO patents)

One can readily expect, however, that as ARIPO member states develop economically, the proportion of applications filed by African applicants will rise steadily, as we have seen in China, for example, where most patent applications are now filed by Chinese applicants. Similarly, as we previously saw in China, it seems that not many African courts yet have a lot of experience with patent trials, though we can likewise expect that landscape to change substantially over the next twenty years of patent term for an application filed now.

downtown harare
A view of downtown Harare

Many African nations have at least a couple or a few strong technological universities and research institutions that are generating new technologies targeted to local needs and challenges, though a dearth of skilled patent agents across Africa had hampered the patenting activity of those institutions. Via annual patent-drafting workshops across Africa, however, we are working to gradually to build that capacity, as more and more workshop graduates find opportunities to begin drafting and filing patent applications in their home countries.

Registered ARIPO patent agents must be from ARIPO member states. At least a handful of patent law firms that make regular filings are located in Harare, and there are a variety of others across the other member states; some larger firms from non-ARIPO African states likewise have at least a small office in an ARIPO member state to enable them to file and practice before ARIPO. inovia can readily connect you with an experienced ARIPO agent [Spoor & Fisher] whom they most trust. And if you file at ARIPO and happen to have a chance to accompany your agent for an examination at ARIPO, I heartily recommend you go, as I expect that you will be surprised at the level of sophistication at ARIPO notwithstanding its comparatively small and dare I say “quaint” facility and at the welcoming spirit of Zimbabweans no matter the economic circumstance at any particular time; and the country hosts some superb wildlife (I particularly recommend the Lion Park about 15 miles outside Harare if you are limited to a short visit).

Harare Lions
Lions outside Harare

As for substantive patent law at ARIPO, the law and practice most closely resembles European Patent law (particularly in terms of evaluating inventive step by the problem-solution approach, for example), though ARIPO does have a best-mode requirement (like the US). Additionally patent applications allowed by ARIPO may be declined by national patent offices if, for example, it pertains to subject matter excluded from patent eligibility by national law (e.g., in the realm of biological organisms). Zimbabwe scrapped its currency a couple years ago (thankfully, you no longer have to venture around Harare with a suitcase full of Zim multi-trillion dollar notes to pay for dinner) and opted for U.S. dollars as its accepted currency, so there should now be no added challenges with official payments or currency conversions.

IMG 22601
A Zim 100 trillion dollar note

For a survey of economic opportunities across African markets (including ARIPO member states), see “A New Gold Rush” in the Wall Street Journal (January 2011) or the special report entitled, “Cracking the Next Growth Market: Africa,” published by Harvard Business Review. As sub-Saharan African markets continue to expand, ARIPO is destined to play a more prominent role within the global patent landscape.

Photos courtesy of Robert Sayre. 

If you're looking to enter the national stage in ARIPO, you can create a free inovia.com account to get a 1-click quote.

Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

Rospatent Now Available as ISA and IPEA for US Applications

Effective January 10, 2012, the Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent) will be available as an International Searching Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) for PCT applications filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as the receiving office.

The offering of Rospatent as ISA or IPEA should provide applicants with a low-cost, but faster option for their PCT applications' international authority. The search fee for electing Rospatent as the ISA is $415 US. Electing Rospatent to be the IPEA will require an international preliminary examination fee of $5400 RUB and a handling fee of $219 US. If the applicant chooses not to have Rospatent perform the international search, the examination fee will be $8100 RUB.

It’s great to see another international patent office deemed acceptable to act as ISA or IPEA for PCT applications filed with the USPTO. Obviously, the more options available to the applicant, the better.

What ISA or IPEA do you usually elect for your PCT application? Will you be considering Rospatent now that it is available?
 

Tags: , , | 2 Comments