PCT/R/WG/1/5

page 1

WIPO / / E
PCT/R/WG/1/5
ORIGINAL: English
DATE: October 26, 2001
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION
GENEVA

international patent cooperation union
(PCT UNION)

working group on reform of the patent
cooperation treaty (PCT)

First Session

Geneva, November 12 to 16, 2001

CHANGES RELATED TO THE PATENT LAW TREATY (plt):
CONTENTs OF THE INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION;
LANGUAGE OF THE INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION and TRANSLATIONS;
RIGHT OF PRIORITY AND PRIORITY CLAIMs; TIME LIMITS

Document prepared by the International Bureau

BACKGROUND[1]

1.At its first session, the Committee on Reform of the PCT (“the Committee”) based its discussions on the matters of conforming PCT filing date and “missing part” type requirements to those of the Patent Law Treaty (PLT), and on other PLT-consistent changes, on documentPCT/R/1/2, Annex, pages 4 (items (3) and (4)) and 6 (item 15) as well as comments and proposals made in other documents. The Committee recommended to the Assembly of the International Patent Cooperation Union (PCT Union) that the matters should be referred to the Working Group (see documentPCT/R/1/26, paragraphs 72, 73 and 74):[2]

“Conform filing date requirements to those in the PLT

72.Discussions were based on document PCT/R/1/2, Annex, page 4, item (3), as well as comments and proposals made in other documents. The following principles, comments and concerns were expressed by various delegations:

(i)while the proposal was generally supported, certain delegations questioned whether it should extend to certain requirements relating to nationality, residence and language;

(ii)the operation of the proposal in the context of the time limit for international search would need to be looked at carefully.

Conform “missing part”type requirements to PLT procedure

73.The Committee generally agreed with the proposals made by the United States of America in document PCT/R/1/2, Annex, page 4, item (4).

Other PLTconsistent changes

74.Discussions were based on document PCT/R/1/2, Annex, page 6, item (15), as well as comments and proposals made in other documents. The following principles, comments and concerns were expressed by various delegations:

(i)there is a general need for the PCT to be reviewed to see what changes are necessary or desirable to bring it into line with the letter and spirit of the PLT;

(ii)the examples given in document PCT/R/1/2 and other documents should be reviewed by the working group;

(iii)the use of modern information technology in filing applications makes it easier for applicants to file unnecessarily complex applications which cannot be satisfactorily handled by Offices (for example, applications containing unduly large numbers of pages or claims or with unduly broad claims);

(iv)related matters to be considered in this context should include extensions of time limits and reinstatement of rights;

(v)in the longer term, there could be possibilities for a complete amalgamation of the provisions of the PCT and the PLT.”

2.Subsequent to the session of the Committee, the Assembly agreed with the Committee’s recommendations.[3]

3.The Annexes to this document contain a number of proposed amendments of the PCT Regulations[4] designed to align PCT requirements with those of the PLT. Annex I contains proposals concerning the contents of the international application (see paragraphs 4 to 9, below). Annex II contains proposals concerning the language of the international application and translations (see paragraphs 10 and 11, below). Annex III contains proposals concerning the right of priority and priority claims (see paragraphs 12 and 13, below). Matters relating to time limits are contained in all three Annexes. The Working Group is invited to discuss at its first session as many of the proposals in the Annexes as time permits.

CONTENTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION

4.With regard to the contents of applications, the main differences between the PLT and the PCT concern filing date requirements and filing date related “missing part” requirements.

5.Filing date requirements of the PLT are contained in PLT Article 5; details are contained in PLT Rule 2. The filing date requirements of the PCT are contained in PCT Article 11(1); details are contained in PCT Rule 20.4.

6.The main differences between the filing date requirements of the PLT and those of the PCT are as follows:

(i)claims: under the PLT, claims are not required for the purposes of the filing date (see PLT Article 5(1)); under the PCT, for the purposes of the international filing date, the international application must contain, at the time of receipt of the application, “a part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or claims” (see PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(e));

(ii)drawing as description: under the PLT, a Contracting Party may, for the purposes of the filing date, accept a drawing as the “part which on the face of it appears to be a description” (see PLT Article 5(1)(b)); there is no equivalent provision in the PCT;

(iii)replacement of description and drawing: under the PLT, for the purposes of the filing date, the description and any drawings may be replaced by a reference, made upon the filing of the application, in a language accepted by the Office, to a previously filed application (see PLT Article 5(7)); there is no equivalent provision in the PCT;

(iv)language related requirements are addressed in paragraphs 10 and 11, below and Annex II;

(v)time limits: see paragraph 14, below.

7.“Missing part” requirements under the PLT (missing part of the description and missing drawing) are contained in PLT Article5(5) and (6) and PLT Rule 2(3). “Missing part” requirements under the PCT are contained in PCT Article 14(2) and PCT Rule 20.2.

8.The main difference between the “missing part” requirements of the PLT and those of the PCT is that, under the PLT, the applicant can rectify the omission of a part of the description or of a drawing without loss of the filing date if the application claims the priority of an earlier application and the missing part of the description or the missing drawing is completely contained in that earlier application (see PLT Article 5(6) and PLT Rule 2(3) and(4)). Under the PCT, later submission of a missing part of the description or of a missing drawing results in the loss of the originally accorded international filing date (except in the case of an authorized rectification of an obvious error under PCT Rule 91), and in the according of a new international filing date (being the date on which the papers completing the international application were received or the date on which all international filing date requirements were fulfilled, whichever is later) (see PCT Article 14(2) and PCT Rule 20.2).

9.Annex I to this document sets out proposals designed to align the filing date requirements (excluding the language related filing date requirements) and the filing date related “missing part” requirements under the PCT to those under the PLT (see Rules 20 (excluding Rule 20.4(c)), 20bis, 26 (excluding Rule 26.3) and 66 (excluding Rule 66.7) as proposed to be amended). In this context, it is also proposed to align certain related requirements under the PCT with those under the PLT (in particular time limits for compliance with non-filing date related requirements; see Rule 26 as proposed to be amended).

LANGUAGE OF THE INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION AND TRANSLATIONS

10.The main difference between the language related requirements of the PLT and those of the PCT is that, under the PLT, only two elements of the application (“an express or implicit indication to the effect that the elements are intended to be an application” and “indications allowing the identity of the applicant to be established or allowing the applicant to be contacted by the Office”) must, for the purposes of the filing date, be in a language accepted by the Office, whereas the “part which on the face of it appears to be a description” may, for the purposes of the filing date, be in any language (see PLT Article5(2)). Under the PCT, both the “part which on the face of it appears to be a description” and the “part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or claims” must, for the purposes of the international filing date, be in a language accepted by the receiving Office (see PCT Article 11(1)(ii) and PCT Rule20.4(c)).

11.Annex II to this document sets out a proposal to align the language related filing date requirements under the PCT to those under the PLT (see Rule 20.4(c) as proposed to be amended). This change has far reaching consequences on certain non-filing date related provisions dealing with the language of the international application for receiving Office processing, international search and international publication. Annex II also sets out specific proposals for amendment of certain Rules which deal with those issues (see Rules 12, 19, 23, 26.3, 35 and 48 as proposed to be amended).

RIGHT OF PRIORITY AND PRIORITY CLAIMS

12.Under the PLT, it is possible for the applicant to request the restoration of the right of priority where an application which claims or could have claimed the priority of an earlier application has a filing date which is later than the date on which the priority period expired but within a certain time limit (see PLT Article 13(2) and PLT Rule14(4) and (5)). There is no equivalent provision in the PCT.

13.Annex III to this document sets out specific proposals to include, in the PCT Regulations, provisions relating to the restoration of the right of priority (see Rules 4 and26bis as proposed to be amended). In this context, it is also proposed to amend Rules 17 and 66.7 so as to provide for the possibility, in line with the PLT requirements, that priority documents may be available, in the future, from digital libraries.

TIME LIMITS

14.Under the PLT, the time limits for subsequent compliance with filing date requirements (see PLT Article 5(3) and (4) and PLT Rule 2(1) and (2)) are longer than those provided for under the PCT (see PCT Article 11(2) and PCT Rule 20.6). Provisions designed to align the PCT with the PLT in respect of time limits are contained in each of the Annexes.

GENERAL REMARKS

15.Some of the proposals in relation to language and time limits appear to be difficult to draft without adding to the complexity of the PCT system. Draft provisions are, however, included in the present document with a view to facilitating discussion on how best to proceed.

16.As regards the language requirements, the added complexity is mainly due to the fact that the proposals have to accommodate the fact that, under the PCT, several Offices and Authorities (and not just one national Office, as is the case under the PLT) process the application during the international phase, and each PCT Office and Authority is entitled, within certain limits, to decide on its own working languages.

17.As regards the time limits for compliance with certain requirements, the added complexity is due to the fact that some (later) time limits are not consistent with the more restrictive time scale under by the PCT within which Offices and Authorities are required to perform certain actions (for example, in relation to the timely establishment of the international search report).

FURTHER PLT CONSISTENT CHANGES

18.The proposals contained in the Annexes to this document do not address all necessary PLT-related changes. For the next session of the Working Group, the International Bureau intends to prepare a further document identifying and addressing the further changes necessary or desirable to bring the PCT in line with the letter and spirit of the PLT.

19.The Working Group is invited to consider the proposals contained in the Annexes to this document.

[Annex I follows]

PCT/R/WG/1/5

Annex I, page 1

ANNEX I

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF THE PCT REGULATIONS:

CONTENTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Rule 20 Receipt of the International Application......

Rule 20bisMissing Part or Missing Drawing

Rule 26 Checking by, and Correcting Before, the Receiving Office of Certain Elements of the International Application

Rule 66 Procedure Before the International Preliminary Examining Authority......

Rule 90bisWithdrawals......

Rule 20
Receipt of the International Application

20.1[No change]

20.2[Deleted]Receipt on Different Days

(a)In cases whereall thesheets pertaining to the same purported international application are not received on the same day by the receiving Office, that Office shall correct the date marked on the request (still leaving legible, however, the earlier date or dates already marked) so that it indicates the day on which the papers completing the international application were received, provided

(i)where no invitation under Article11(2)(a) to correct was sent to the applicant, the said papers are received within 30 days from the date on which sheets were first received;

(ii)where an invitation under Article11(2)(a) to correct was sent to the applicant,the said papers are received within the applicable time limit under Rule 20.6;

(iii)in the case of Article14(2), the missing drawings are received within 30 days from the date on which the incomplete papers were filed;

(iv)the absence or later receipt of any sheet containing the abstract or part thereof shall not, in itself, require any correction of the date marked on the request.

[Rule 20.2, continued]

(b)Any sheet received on a date later than the date on which sheets were first received shall be marked by the receiving Office with the date on which it was received.

[COMMENT: It is proposed to delete present Rule 20.2 so as to combine the issue of “receipt on different days” and the issue of “missing parts of the international application” in new Rule20bis (see below). It is further proposed to move the content of the chapeau of present paragraph (a) (“that Office shall correct the date marked on the request (still leaving legible, however, the earlier date or dates already marked) so that it indicates the day on which the papers completing the international application were received”) and the content of present paragraph (b) to the Administrative Instructions.]

20.3[Deleted]Corrected International Application

In the case referred to in Article 11(2)(b), the receiving Office shall correct the date marked on the request (still leaving legible, however, the earlier date or dates already marked) so that it indicates the day on which the last required correction was received.

[COMMENT: With regard to the case of subsequent compliance with Article 11(1) requirements (“the case referred to in Article 11(2)(b)”), see proposed new Rule 20.6bis, below. It is proposed to move the content of present Rule 20.3 to the Administrative Instructions.]

20.4Determination Under Article11(1)

(a)[No change]

(a-bis)For the purposes of Article11(1)(iii)(a), an implicit indication to the effect that the elements are intended to be an international application shall be sufficient.

[COMMENT: See PLT Article 5(1)(i).]

[Rule 20.4, continued]

(b)For the purposes of Article11(1)(iii)(c), it shall be sufficient to indicate the name of the applicant in a way which allows his identity to be established even if the name is misspelled, the given names are not fully indicated, or, in the case of legal entities, the indication of the name is abbreviated or incomplete.

[COMMENT: No change; included in this document only for ease of reference. It is to be noted that, in view of the option provided under PLT Article5(1)(c), both this paragraph and Article11(1)(iii)(c) are compatible with PLT Article5(1)(a)(ii).]

(b-bis)For the purposes of Article 11(1)(iii)(d), a drawing shall be accepted as the part which appears to be a description.

[COMMENT: See PLT Article 5(1)(b).]

(c)[No change]

[COMMENT: No change is proposed in the context of this Annex; see, however, changes proposed to Rule20.4(c) in Annex II to this document.]

[Rule 20.4, continued]

(d)For the purposes of Article 11(1)(iii)(e), the part which on the face of it appears to be a description shall be considered to contain a part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or claims. If, on October 1, 1997, paragraph(c) is not compatible with the national law applied by the receiving Office, paragraph(c) shall not apply to that receiving Office for as long as it continues not to be compatible with that law, provided that the said Office informs the International Bureau accordingly by December31, 1997. The information received shall be promptly published by the International Bureau in the Gazette.

[COMMENT: See PLT Article 5(1). It is proposed to amend paragraph (d) so as to align the PCT filing date requirements with regard to claims with those under the PLT; under paragraph (d) as proposed to be amended, the presence, upon filing, of “a part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or claims” (see Article 11(1)(iii)(e)) would no longer be required. See also Rule 26.3ter as proposed to be amended, below.]

(e)For the purposes of Article 11(1)(iii)(d), a reference, made upon filing of the international application, in a language accepted by the receiving Office under Rule12.1(a), to a previously filed application shall, subject to paragraphs (f) to (i), replace the description and any drawings and, if applicable, the claim or claims.

[COMMENT: See PLT Article 5(7). It seems appropriate to mention the claims in the context of the PCT, notwithstanding that PLT Article 5(7) is silent as to them. A question remaining to be addressed is what constitutes the record copy, the search copy and the home copy in a case where the description, any drawings and, if applicable, the claim or claims are replaced by a reference to a previously filed application.]

[Rule 20.4, continued]

(f)The reference to the previously filed application referred to in paragraph(e) shall indicate that, for the purposes of the international filing date, the description and any drawings and, if applicable, the claim or claims are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application; the reference shall also indicate the number of that application, the filing date of that application and the Office with which that application was filed.

[COMMENT: See PLT Rule 2(5)(a).]

(g)Where the international application contains a reference to a previously filed application referred to in paragraph(e), the applicant shall, subject to paragraph (i), within one month from the date of receipt of the international application by the receiving Office, furnish to that Office a copy of the previously filed application and, where the previously filed application is not in a language accepted by the receiving Office under Rule 12.1(a), is not in a language accepted by the International Searching Authority that is to carry out the international search or is not in a language of publication, a translation of that previously filed application into a language referred to in Rule 12.3(a).