Report

- 31 -
already enjoying under the present system. On the
contrary, the addition of other patent authorities may
complicate the existing system. The discrepancies
between different patent systems may also lead to
inconsistencies in the scope of protection attached to
patents based on patents granted by different
designated patent offices. 33
The Direction for Change
3.36 The Advisory Committee reviewed all of the above
considerations and agreed that a long-term strategic view on the future
patent system for Hong Kong should be taken, which should not be
clouded by immediate difficulties. The next step to take, even on a pilot
basis, should help Hong Kong to develop into a regional innovation and
technology hub, taking advantage of the opportunities offered by
Mainland China, as well as the increasing demand for and tradability in
IP rights.
3.37 In this light, the Advisory Committee favours moving
towards the OGP direction, accepting that some of the perceived
difficulties are genuine concerns but not insurmountable. Most
importantly, the way forward to take must not be at the expense of
compromising patent quality, user-friendliness and effectiveness of our
present patent system. With reference to the three options set out in the
Consultation Paper (paragraph 3.1 above) –
(a)
Option 1 appears too ambitious, running a high risk
of compromising the patent quality and general
effectiveness of our patent system. It is contrary to
33
The selection of the current three designated patent offices is more historical. The UK Patent
Office and EPO (for applications designating UK) were included to preserve the pre-1997 position,
while SIPO was added because of the relationship between Hong Kong and Mainland China after
China assumed sovereignty in 1997.