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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« USPTO Signs Memorandums of Understanding with Rospatent and SIPO | Main | Wyeth Holdings Corp. v. Sebelius (Fed. Cir. 2010) »

June 21, 2010

Comments

Thanks Don. Interesting that the document doesn't mention anything about filing color drawings (something that I understand from the PCT's Matthew Bryan has been tied up for years over the issue of the standard to be adopted), or the possibility of requiring the searching office to provide a refund if it doesn't timely issue the search report. Regarding the former, it's ridiculous that all the leading scientific journals will accept and publish color figures, and that such figures can be more informative than B/W figures, but the PCT is still mired in 19th century concepts of patent drawings. Regarding the latter, if refunds aren't realistic, maybe the PCT should move to charging part of the search fee up front but the majority of the fee after the search report has been prepared. If the report was prepared on time, then you'd have to pay up in order to enter national phase. If the report wasn't prepared on time, applicants would only pay additional fees if they wanted to see the report.

Patent Infringement is a growing problem. Since law does not require manufacturers to inform patent owners that they are using the patent owner’s invention, Patent infringement can be unintentional. In most cases, it will be up to the owner of the patent to pursue Patent Litigation, a costly and time consuming process. It is always a good idea, if you are going to get a patent, that you do extensive research to make sure that no one already has a patent, and that you continue to monitor the industry to ensure that no one uses your patent with out your consent.

Despite the details and imperfections that need to be worked out, I'm glad to see that implementation of the PCT is moving along. International worksharing efforts are critical in our current global environment. As long as the member states all retain their sovereignty, there are few convincing arguments against international worksharing in patent law.
http://www.generalpatent.com/media/videos/general-patent-gets-results-its-clients

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2021

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