About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« USPTO Issues Memorandum on Vanda Pharmaceuticals v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals | Main | Illumina, Inc. v. Natera, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2018) »

July 10, 2018

Comments

Am thankful to the PCT system. This will promote very smooth prosecution of the National Phase Applications which in turn will reduce time and prevent any backlogs.

Thanks once again.

Best regards
Shaklain Khurshid

500 apps searched total (per country) - is that even close to a meaningful number?

It's a test, skeptical - and I think the idea is to see if it's viable for the patent offices and whether applicants want it.

Thanks Dr. Noonan.

While I realize that it is a test, my comment goes more to the infinitesimal number OF that test.

How many applications are filed per year (per participating Sovereign) - in toto? EVEN IF some result is obtained, the disparity related to any sense of "scale-up" would make the current test meaningless.

It is encouraging to see this pilot as this type of collaboration may improve the comprehensiveness of the written opinions regarding novelty and inventiveness. Nevertheless, since none of the opinions are legally-binding, hopefully the offices involved will ensure that some type of oversight is being incorporated to ensure that these opinions are consistent with subsequent prosecution of the applications.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31