Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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? in Paragraph 1.40 of the Consultation Paper. APAA does not consider establishment of an OGP system with in-house substantive examination capability in Hong Kong is even remotely viable. Therefore, if an OGP system is introduced in Hong Kong, substantive examination will need to be outsourced to other patent offices that are credible and meet any concerns on language-related issues, such as the USPTO, EPO, SIPO, UKPO, Australia Patent Office (“IP Australia”) and Japan Patent Office (“JPO”). Instead of introducing an OGP system in Hong Kong with substantive examination outsourced to other patent office(s), APAA recommends introducing a “modified examination” patent system. The Law Society considers that if an OGP system is introduced in Hong Kong, in view of the substantial resources to be invested and the time required to build up local expertise, it is sensible to outsource substantive examination to other patent offices. However, it points out that if it is considered important to develop a local patent profession in Hong Kong, care should be taken to consider whether outsourcing to SIPO may give PRC patent practitioners added competitive advantage hence counter-productive to the objective of nurturing local talents. The Law Society is of the opinion that, taking into account language consideration, SIPO, EPO, UKPO, the USPTO and IP Australia may be considered when deciding to which patent office(s) substantive examination is outsourced. The Law Society warns that whilst having more recognised patent offices may minimise the cost of duplication if the applicant can choose an examination office where he has already filed an earlier application, the increased list of examination 97
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? offices may bring in elements of foreign law which is not consistent or compatible with the Hong Kong patent law. Although to some extent, this has been the case with the current re-registration system relying on grants from the three overseas designated patent offices, the expectation for consistency of grant will be much greater with an original grant from Hong Kong despite outsourcing of the substantive examination. 3.3 Political Parties / Groups DAB New People’s Party () DAB opines that there may not be sufficient examiners with necessary technical expertise and a technical database which is comprehensive enough for the purpose of substantive examination at the preliminary stage of the establishment of the OGP system in Hong Kong. Hence at the initial stage, DAB considers that substantive examination of patents applied in Hong Kong should be outsourced to SIPO by an outsourcing agreement between SIPO and Hong Kong. At the same time, a technical database should be set up and talents possessing necessary technology expertise should be imported. Hong Kong should also strive for the mutual recognition for patents registered in Hong Kong and Mainland so as to attract overseas organisations and parties engaging in inventions or patent-related industry to develop their businesses in Hong Kong. When the conditions become appropriate for in-house substantive examination, Hong Kong should then consider arranging the conduct of substantive examination for suitable patent applications in Hong Kong. Hong Kong should then create niches in patent examination and build up its international reputation in that aspect so as to attract other regions to outsource substantive examination of their patent applications to Hong Kong. New People’s Party believes that Hong Kong should consider in-house substantive examination as the training of patent expertise will mean more IP business and greater economic benefits. In addition, if the search and examination capabilities 98
Page 2:
Table of Contents Executive Summary
Page 5 and 6:
- ii - (A) Standard Patents (a) An
Page 7 and 8:
- iv - (C) Regulation of Patent Age
Page 9 and 10:
- 2 - 1.4 As a supplement to standa
Page 11 and 12:
- 4 - including legal professionals
Page 13 and 14:
- 6 - choice of patent office(s) to
Page 15 and 16:
CHAPTER 3 Standard Patents Options
Page 17 and 18:
- 10 - (c) (d) Providing a better b
Page 19 and 20:
- 12 - (h) The availability of an O
Page 21 and 22:
- 14 - addition to generating IP, i
Page 23 and 24:
(B) International Patent Landscape
Page 25 and 26:
- 18 - 3.20 Other Asian economies a
Page 27 and 28:
- 20 - Kong, design and innovation,
Page 29 and 30:
- 22 - world-class business profess
Page 31 and 32:
- 24 - (a) Lack of control Given th
Page 33 and 34:
- 26 - (b) Autonomy An OGP system w
Page 35 and 36:
- 28 - the OGP system so as to attr
Page 37 and 38:
- 30 - (f) Costs Considerable costs
Page 39 and 40:
- 32 - the consensual views from th
Page 41 and 42:
- 34 - (f) Depending on users’ ac
Page 43 and 44:
- 36 - examination before commencem
Page 45 and 46:
- 38 - Kong. This should not only h
Page 47 and 48:
- 40 - (d) Who should pay for the c
Page 49 and 50:
- 42 - Section 89(2) further provid
Page 51 and 52:
- 44 - area where the Patents Regis
Page 53 and 54: - 46 - about the validity of a shor
Page 55 and 56: - 48 - (C) Increasing the Maximum N
Page 57 and 58: CHAPTER 5 Regulation of Patent Agen
Page 59 and 60: - 52 - Whether to Regulate or Not C
Page 61 and 62: - 54 - (c) In each of the jurisdict
Page 63 and 64: - 56 - Considerations 5.14 In asses
Page 65 and 66: - 58 - 5.22 Instead, the regulatory
Page 67 and 68: - 60 - Annex A Membership List of t
Page 69 and 70: Chapter 1 : Standard Patent System
Page 103: Chapter 1 : Standard Patent System
Page 129 and 130: Chapter 2 : Short-Term Patent Syste
Page 155 and 156:
Chapter 3 : Regulation of Patent Ag
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Other Comments Regarding the Patent
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Annex C Comparison of Key Features
Page 193 and 194:
Extension of patent term HONG KONG
Page 195 and 196:
Application and grant procedures HO
Page 197 and 198:
HONG KONG MACAO SINGAPORE After rec
Page 199 and 200:
HONG KONG MACAO SINGAPORE (f) revoc
Page 201 and 202:
Country Title Maximum term of prote
Page 203 and 204:
Country Title Maximum term of prote
Page 205 and 206:
Annex F An Overview of the Patent A
Page 207 and 208:
Jurisdiction Regulatory Body New Ze
Page 209:
Jurisdiction Regulatory Body United
show all

Report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?