Report

Chapter 2 : Short-Term Patent System (50 submissions received)
7. Should we retain the current short-term patent system in its existing form, or should we introduce changes to the system? If the
latter, what sort of changes should be introduced?
the utility model patents granted by China, Japan, Republic of Korea and other
jurisdictions; and
(c) restriction on the number of claims allowed in each patent application should
be relaxed but the applicants should be charged an additional fee proportional
to the number of additional claims in each patent application so as to ensure
that the claims are really necessary and can serve a useful purpose.
Whilst APICC considers that discontinuation of the short-term patent system is an
option, it suggests that if the system (which does not involve substantive
examination) is maintained, it could be outsourced to professional or trade
associations, and IPD can focus on building up the capacity and the work processes
relating to fully-examined patents.
7.7 Individuals
Stanley
Tom Lam
Eric Yung
Stanley suggests that optional substantive examination for short-term patents should
be introduced, which can be carried out after the short-term patent is granted.
Substantive examination should be a condition for commencement of infringement
proceedings. Only the patent owner should have the right to request for
substantive examination and the costs incurred in substantive examination of the
patent should be borne by the patent owner. The current term of protection for
short-term patent should be extended to 10 years. Restriction in the number of
claims is necessary to prevent abuse of the system, but to encourage innovation, the
maximum number of claims can be increased to two or three, and this can be further
adjusted in future.
Hui Wing Kin
Tom Lam suggests that short-term patent system should be retained but options for
138