Report

Chapter 1 : Standard Patent System (64 submissions received)
3. Should we introduce an OGP system in Hong Kong with substantive examination outsourced to other patent office(s), and, if so,
which office(s) and why?
Organisations / Individuals Views / Concerns
3.1 Industrial / Trade Associations
CMA
HKAPIA
TMHK
HKEIA
HKMFS
FHKI
PVCHK
HKGCC
LESC-HK
CMA is of the view that at the beginning stage of the promulgation of the OGP
system, part of the substantive examination work should be outsourced to other
appropriate patent offices such as SIPO. The reputation of the outsourced patent
offices in respect of confidentiality is important in considering the patent office to
which substantive examination should be outsourced.
HKAPIA, TMHK, HKEIA, HKMFS and PVCHK consider the option of
introduction of an OGP system in Hong Kong with substantive examination
outsourced to other patent office(s) to be more viable. They further suggest that
SIPO should be the patent office to which such substantive examination is
outsourced, and they consider this will have the benefit of (a) providing a better
basis for the mutual recognition of patents granted by Hong Kong and Mainland
China; and (b) the filing of more patent applications for overseas innovative
inventions attracted through Hong Kong.
FHKI considers that Hong Kong does not have enough expertise to handle various
fields of substantive examination, and it will be appropriate to outsource substantive
examination to SIPO in the beginning. The Government should proceed to
formulate plans for personnel training and eventually aim at replacing the
outsourcing with in-house substantive examination.
As there is no compelling need to set up an OGP system in Hong Kong, HKGCC
thinks that the Government should take time to organise and maintain a large team
of examiners and develop a comprehensive technical database at reasonable costs.
95