DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 1800 Patent Cooperation Treaty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 1800 Patent Cooperation Treaty Chapter 1800 Patent Cooperation Treaty Patent Cooperation Treaty 1846 Sections of the Articles, Regulations, and 1801 Basic Patent Cooperation Administrative Instructions Under the PCT Treaty (PCT) Principles Relevant to the International Search 1802 PCT Definitions 1847 Refund of International Search Fee 1803 Reservations Under the PCT Taken by the 1848 Sequence Listings > and Tables Related to United States of America Sequence Listings< 1805 Where to File an International Application 1849 Subject Matter Excluded from International 1807 Agent or Common Representative and General Search Power of Attorney 1850 Unity of Invention Before the International 1808 Change in or Revocation of the Appointment of Searching Authority an Agent or a Common Representative 1851 Identification of Patent Documents 1810 Filing Date Requirements 1852 International-Type Search 1812 Elements of the International 1853 Amendment Under PCT Article 19 Application 1857 International Publication 1817 PCT Member States 1857.01 Prior Art Effect of the International Publication 1817.01 Designation of States and Precautionary 1859 Withdrawal of International Application or Designations Designations 1817.02 Continuation or Continuation-in-Part 1860 International Preliminary Examination Indication in the Request 1861 Chapter II Basic Flow 1819 Earlier International or International-Type 1862 Agreement with the International Search Bureau To Serve as an International 1820 Signature of Applicant Preliminary Examination Authority 1821 The Request 1864 The Demand and Preparation 1823 The Description for Filing of Demand 1823.01 Reference to Deposited Biological Material 1864.01 Amendments Filed with Demand 1823.02 Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence 1864.02 Applicant’s Right to File a Demand Listings >, and Tables Related to Sequence 1864.03 States Which May Be Elected Listings< 1864.04 Agent’s Right to Act 1824 The Claims 1865 Filing of Demand 1825 The Drawings >1865.01 The European Patent Office as an International 1826 The Abstract Preliminary Examining Authority< 1827 Fees 1866 Filling in of Headings on Chapter II Forms 1828 Priority Claim and Document 1867 Preliminary Examination Fees 1830 International Application 1868 Correction of Defects in the Demand Transmittal Letter 1869 Notification to International Bureau of Demand 1832 License Request for Foreign 1870 Priority Document and Translation Thereof Filing Under the PCT 1871 Processing Amendments Filed Under Article 19 1834 Correspondence and Article 34 Prior to or at the Start of 1834.01 Use of Telegraph, Teleprinter, International Preliminary Examination Facsimile Machine 1872 Transmittal of Demand to the Examining Corps 1834.02 Irregularities in the Mail Service 1873 Later Election of States 1836 Rectification of Obvious Errors 1874 Determination if International Preliminary 1840 The International Searching Authority Examination Is Required and Possible 1840.01 The European Patent Office 1875 Unity of Invention Before the International as an International Searching Preliminary Examining Authority Authority 1875.01 Preparation of Invitation 1842 ** Basic Flow >Under the PCT< Concerning Unity 1843 The International Search 1875.02 Reply to Invitation Concerning 1844 The International Search Report Lack of Unity of Invention 1844.01 Time for the International 1876 Notation of Errors and Informalities by the Search Report Examiner 1800-1 Rev. 1, Feb. 2003 1801 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE 1876.01 Request for Rectification and 1893.03(e) Papers Received from the International Bureau Notification of Action Thereon and Placed in a U.S. National Stage 1877 Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Application File Listings During the International Preliminary 1893.03(f) Drawings and PCT Rule 11 Examination 1893.03(g) Information Disclosure Statement in a National 1878 Preparation of the Written Opinion Stage Application 1878.01 1895 A Continuation or Continuation-in-Part 1878.01(a) Prior Art Under Chapter II Application of a PCT Application Designating 1878.01(a)(1) Novelty Under Chapter II the United States 1878.01(a)(2) Inventive Step Under Chapter II 1895.01 Handling of and Considerations 1878.01(a)(3) Industrial Applicability Under Chapter II In the Handling of National Applications 1878.02 Reply to the Written Opinion Under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 35 U.S.C. 111(a) 1879 Preparation of the International Preliminary Continuations and Continuations-In-Part of a Examination Report PCT Application 1879.01 Time Limit for Preparing Report 1896 The Differences Between a National 1879.02 Transmittal of the International Preliminary Application Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and a Examination Report National Stage Application *>Submitted< 1879.03 Translations Under 35 U.S.C. 371 1879.04 Confidential Nature of the Report 1880 Withdrawal of Demand or Election INTRODUCTION 1881 Receipt of Notice of Election by the Patent and Trademark Office This chapter is designed to be a guide for patent 1890 Receipt of Notice of Designation examiners in searching and examining applications 1891 Receipt of Notice of Election and Preliminary filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Examination Report Applicants desiring additional information for filing 1893 National Stage (U.S. National Application Filed international applications should obtain a copy of the Under 35 U.S.C. 371) PCT Applicant’s Guide from the World Intellectual 1893.01 Commencement and Entry Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzer- 1893.01(a) Entry via the U.S. Designated >or Elected< land. Office The Articles and Regulations under the PCT are 1893.01(a)(1) Submissions Required by * >30< Months from the Priority Date reproduced in Appendix T of this Manual and the 1893.01(a)(2) Article 19 Amendment (Filed Administrative Instructions are reproduced in Appen- With the International Bureau) dix AI of this Manual. The text of the PCT Applicant’s ** Guide, the monthly PCT Newsletter, the weekly PCT Gazette, downloadable PCT forms, and additional >1893.01(a)(3)< ** Article 34 Amendments (Filed with the information about the processing of international International Preliminary Examining applications are available from WIPO’s website Authority) (www.wipo.int/pct). 1893.01(c) Fees PCT applications are processed by the International 1893.01(d) Translation Application Processing Division within the U.S. 1893.01(e) Oath/Declaration Patent and Trademark Office. 1893.02 Abandonment 1893.03 Prosecution of U.S. National Stage Applications Before the Examiner 1801 Basic Patent Cooperation Treaty 1893.03(a) How To Identify That an Application Is a U.S. (PCT) Principles [R-1] National Stage Application 1893.03(b) The Filing Date of a U.S. National Stage MAJOR CONCEPTS OF THE PCT Application 1893.03(c) The Priority Date, Priority Claim, and Priority The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) enables the Papers for a U.S. National Stage Application U.S. applicant to file one application, “an interna- 1893.03(d) Unity of Invention tional application,” in a standardized format in Rev.1, Feb. 2003 1800-2 PATENT COOPERATION TREATY 1801 English in the U.S. Receiving Office (the U.S. Patent RECEIVING OFFICE (RO) and Trademark Office), and have that application acknowledged as a regular national filing in as many The international application (IA) must be filed in member countries to the PCT as the applicant “desig- the prescribed receiving Office (RO)(PCT Article 10). nates” or “elects,” that is, names, as countries in The United States Patent and Trademark Office will which patent protection is desired. In the same man- act as a receiving Office for United States residents ner, the PCT enables foreign applicants to file a PCT and nationals (35 U.S.C. 361(a)). Under PCT Rule international application, designating the United 19.1(a)(iii), the International Bureau of the World States of America, in their home language in their Intellectual Property Organization will also act as a home patent office and have the application acknowl- Receiving Office for U.S. residents and nationals. The edged as a regular U.S. national filing. The PCT also receiving Office functions as the filing and formalities provides for a search and publication after 18 months review organization for international applications. from the priority date. Upon payment of national fees and the furnishing of any required translation, usually International applications must contain upon filing the *>30< months after the filing of any priority applica- designation of at least one country in which patent tion for the invention, or the international filing date if protection is desired and must meet certain standards no priority is claimed, the application will be sub- for completeness and formality (PCT Articles 11(1) jected to national procedures for granting of patents in and 14(1)). each of the designated countries. **>For those coun- Where a priority claim is made, the date of the ear- tries whose national laws are not compatible with the lier filed national application is used as the date for 30 month period set forth in PCT Article 22(1), the determining the timing of international processing, filing of a demand for an international preliminary including the various transmittals, the payment of cer- examination electing such countries within 19 months tain international and national fees, and publication of from the priority date will result in an extension of the period for entering the national stage to 30 months the application. Where no priority claim is made, the from the priority date. A brief description of the basic international filing date will be considered to be the flow under the PCT is provided in MPEP § 1842.< “priority date” for timing purposes (PCT Article 2(xi)). The PCT offers an alternative route to filing patent applications directly in the patent offices of those The international application is subject to the pay- countries which are members of the PCT. It does not ment of certain fees upon filing, or within 1 month preclude taking advantage of the priority rights and thereafter, and at the expiration of 12 months from the other advantages provided under the Paris Convention priority date or within 1 month thereafter.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Library Start Your Business: Draft a Patent Application
    Library Start Your Business: Draft a Patent Application Azalea Ebbay Librarian, San Diego Public Library Roya Bagheri Staff Attorney, San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc. Paul Yen Primary Examiner, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office June 10, 2020 Library Overview • Patent and Trademark Resource Center with Azalea Ebbay • San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc. with Roya Bagheri • Learn How to Draft a Patent Application with Paul Yen Library Patent and Trademark Resource Center • Provide free access to patent and trademark resources provided by the USPTO • Direct you to information and explain the application process and fee schedule • Demonstrate how to use patent and trademark search tools • Show you a directory of local patent attorneys and agents who are licensed to practice before the USPTO • Assists with patent searches for an ancestor’s inventions • Offers free educational programs Note: We cannot provide business or legal advice. We cannot perform patent or trademark 2019 Start Your Business event searches. with San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc. and Procopio Library Teaching patents to high school students for UCSD Rady School of Management’s LaunchPad Kid’s Invent It Month, a program children’s themed program Library You can borrow free small business eBooks with your library card on CloudLibrary. You can also pick up your holds at select San Diego Public Library locations. Library Our Final Event with the U.S.P.T.O. Trademark Application Walk-through with Jason Lott Date: June 17th Time: 2-3:30 p.m. PST Registration website: https://sandiego.librarymarket.com/events/start-your-business-trademark-application-w alk-through-webex-event Any questions? Azalea Ebbay, San Diego Public Library [email protected] (619) 238-6683 San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Prior Art and Possession
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 60 (2018-2019) Issue 1 Article 4 10-15-2018 Patent Prior Art and Possession Timothy R. Holbrook Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Repository Citation Timothy R. Holbrook, Patent Prior Art and Possession, 60 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 123 (2018), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol60/iss1/4 Copyright c 2018 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr PATENT PRIOR ART AND POSSESSION TIMOTHY R. HOLBROOK* ABSTRACT Prior art in patent law defines the set of materials that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and courts use to determine whether the invention claimed in a patent is new and non- obvious. One would think that, as a central, crucial component of patent law, prior art would be thoroughly theorized and doctrinally coherent. Nothing could be further from the truth. The prior art provisions represent an ad hoc codification of various policies and doctrines that arose in the courts. This Article provides coherency to this morass. It posits a prior art system that draws upon property law’s conception of possession. Possession operates when an actor asserts dominion over a resource or object in a way that communicates that assertion to third parties. In this way, public availability becomes the key lodestar to prior art. In the prior art context, the possession framework would divide prior art into two categories: prior art generated by third parties and prior art generated by the patent applicant herself.
    [Show full text]
  • European Patent Convention
    No. 16208 MULTILATERAL Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) (with Implementing Regulations, Protocol on Jurisdiction and the Recognition of Deci sions in Respect of the Right to the Grant of a Euro pean Patent, Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Patent Organisation, Protocol on the Centralisation of the European Patent System and on its Introduction, and Protocol on the Interpretation of article 69 of the Convention). Concluded at Munich on 5 October 1973 Authentic texts: German, English and French, Registered by the Federal Republic of Germany on 11 January 1978. MULTILATERAL Convention sur la délivrance de brevets européens (Con vention sur le brevet européen) [avec Règlement d'exécution, Protocole sur la compétence judiciaire et la reconnaissance de décisions portant sur le droit à l'ob tention du brevet européen, Protocole sur les privilèges et immunités de l'Organisation européenne des brevets, Protocole sur la centralisation et l'introduction du système européen des brevets, et Protocole interprétatif de l'article 69 de la Convention]. Conclue à Munich le 5 octobre 1973 Textes authentiques : allemand, anglais et français. Enregistrée par la République fédérale d'Allemagne le 11 janvier 1978. Vol. 1065,1-16208 1978 United Nations — Treaty Series • Nations Unies — Recueil des Traités 255 CONVENTION1 ON THE GRANT OF EUROPEAN PATENTS (EURO PEAN PATENT CONVENTION) CONTENTS Preamble Art. 18. Examining Divisions Part I. General and institutional provisions Art. 19. Opposition Divisions Art. 20. Legal Division Chapter I. General provisions Art. 21. Boards of Appeal Art. 1. European law for the grant of Art. 22. Enlarged Board of Appeal patents Art.
    [Show full text]
  • Secret Prior Art – Time for Another Look Secret Prior Art –Time for by Andrew Berks* Another Look
    A Publication of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association April/May 2017 The Report In This Issue Secret Prior Art – Time for Another Look Secret Prior Art –Time for By Andrew Berks* Another Look ......................1,4-7 ecret prior art” refers to a pat- files the application, even if the other President’s Corner ......................2-3 “Sent application that is effective person’s work was totally unknown to as a prior art reference as of its filing the inventor, then the subject invention In Memoriam date, even though it does not become fails the novelty test and should not be MARY RICHARDSON .............. 3 known to the public until its publi- entitled to a patent. cation date.1 These types of prior art But as a form of public disclosure, A Statistical Look at PTAB references, falling within the scope there is a special class of patent Post-Grant Proceedings .........8-11 of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) (or pre-AIA applications that may qualify as prior § 102(e)), have long been surrounded art: those that were filed before but PTAB Developments by controversy in obviousness-type published after the subject patent Involving CRISPR- invalidity arguments.2 This paper ex- application was filed. These so-called Cas9 Gene Editing amines the nature and history of this “secret prior art” patent applications Technology .........................12-15 problem and proposes a solution. are an artifact of the inherent delays in patent office procedures. For 95thAnnual Dinner in I. Conditions for Patentability example, in the United States, prior Honor of the Federal It is axiomatic under modern to 2000, patent applications were Judiciary .............................16-17 patent law systems that a patent claim kept secret until they issued.
    [Show full text]
  • European Patent Procedure Explained
    European Patent Procedure Explained Patents in Europe When protecting an invention in Europe, you can either file a single European patent application covering 40 member states, or you can file individual national patent applications in each separate European state where you require patent protection. In general, if you require patent protection in more than a single national European state, it is likely to be more cost effective to file a European patent application under the European Patent Convention. European patent applications can take quite a long time to process. The average prosecution from filing to a decision on grant is around 44 months. Prosecution can be quicker in some individual national states. This is particularly true in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Additionally, short term patents (known as petty patents, or utility models), where there is generally a novelty requirement and either no inventive step requirement, or a lower level of inventive step requirement than for a European patent or a standard national patent, are available in some European states, for example Germany and Italy. These may have a cost or speed advantage over a standard national patent, or a European patent. However, for most inventions originating outside Europe, the European patent under the European Patent Convention, is the primary form of protection. European Patent - Overall Procedure From filing to grant, the stages are: - Filing the application: A full description, claims, abstract and where appropriate drawings, must be supplied at the point of filing. An application fee and search fee are also due on filing. The application can be filed in any official language of a member state, but a translation into English, French or German, the three official languages of the European Patent Convention, must be supplied shortly after filing.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Section 101 Patent Cases Decided After Alice V
    CHART OF POST-ALICE CASES (as of March 1, 2019) OVERVIEW PAGE I. CLAIMS INELIGIBLE UNDER ALICE ........................................................................................................................................... 2 A. Software/Tech Patents (359 total) 1. Federal Circuit Decisions (52 total) ....................................................................................................................................2 2. District Court Decisions (307 total) ..................................................................................................................................24 B. Biotechnology/Life Sciences Patents (37 total) 1. Federal Circuit Decisions (6 total) .....................................................................................................................................86 2. District Court Decisions (31 total) .....................................................................................................................................90 II. CLAIMS ELIGIBLE UNDER ALICE ............................................................................................................................................ 99 A. Software/Tech Patents (170 total) 1. Federal Circuit Decisions (13 total) ...................................................................................................................................99 2. District Court Decisions (157) .........................................................................................................................................105
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Abstract of Title
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota) North Dakota Law Review Volume 46 Number 2 Article 1 1969 Examining the Abstract of Title J. Philip Johnson Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Johnson, J. Philip (1969) "Examining the Abstract of Title," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 46 : No. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol46/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXAMINING THE ABSTRACT OF TITLE J. PHILIP JOHNSON* Introduction Many otherwise experienced lawyers express dismay when a client appears with an abstract of title in hand. Even within the generalized practice of North Dakota, there are relatively few attorneys that handle the great majority of title examinations, usually in connection with the mortgaging of the property. There is no deep secret to the examination process but there is a certain amount of background and a few rules of practice that can be extremely helpful. The following is offered as an explanation and aid for title examination within this region and particularly this state. 1. HISTORY OF THE ABSTRACT-OPINION SYSTEM The system of real estate title examination common to the upper midwest region of the United States is based upon the opinion of a lawyer gained from examination of an abstract of the real estate records.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Novely Under Pre-Aia Law A. Introduction
    CHAPTER 6: NOVELY UNDER PRE-AIA LAW A. INTRODUCTION TO THE PRE-AIA VERSION OF § 102 .................................................... 1 B. § 102(b): THE GENERAL STATUTORY BARS ...................................................................... 3 C. §§ 102(c) & (d): RARE STATUTORY BARS ........................................................................... 6 1. Section 102(c): Abandonment ................................................................................................ 6 2. § 102(d): Late U.S. Application After Foreign Patenting ....................................................... 7 D. NOVELTY (REFERENCES TESTED BY INVENTION DATE) .......................................... 10 1. § 102(a): Publicly Available Prior Art .................................................................................. 11 2. § 102(e): Disclosures in U.S. Patent Applications ................................................................ 17 3. § 102(g)(1): Inventions Claimed in U.S. Applications ......................................................... 21 4. § 102(g)(2): Inventions Made In the United States ............................................................... 21 E. DATES OF INVENTION AND PRIORITY ............................................................................ 21 1. § 102(g)(1): Determining Priority in Interferences ............................................................... 24 a. Conception, Diligence and Reduction to Practice ............................................................ 25 b. “Abandoned,
    [Show full text]
  • MPEP § National Fees, and Publication of the Application
    Chapter 1800 Patent Cooperation Treaty 1801 Basic Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) 1834 Correspondence Principles 1834.01 Filing of Correspondence by 1802 PCT De®nitions Facsimile 1803 Reservations Under the PCT Taken by, 1834.02 Irregularities in the Mail or Electronic and Noti®cations of Incompatibility Communications Service Made by, the United States of America 1835 [Reserved] 1804 [Reserved] 1836 Recti®cation of Obvious Mistakes 1805 Where To File an International 1837 [Reserved] Application -1839 1806 Applicants and Inventors 1840 The International Searching Authority 1807 Agent or Common Representative and 1840.01 The European Patent Of®ce as an General Power of Attorney International Searching Authority 1808 Change in or Revocation of the 1840.02 The Korean Intellectual Property Appointment of an Agent or a Common Of®ce as an International Searching Representative Authority 1809 PAIR Access 1840.03 The Australian Patent Of®ce (IP 1810 Filing Date Requirements Australia) as an International 1811 [Reserved] Searching Authority 1812 Elements of the International 1840.04 The Federal Service for Intellectual Application Property (Rospatent) (Russian 1813 [Reserved] Federation) as an International -1816 Searching Authority 1817 PCT Member States 1840.05 The Israel Patent Of®ce (ILPO) as an 1818 [Reserved] International Searching Authority 1819 Earlier Search 1840.06 The Japan Patent Of®ce (JPO) as an 1820 Signature of Applicant International Searching Authority 1821 The Request 1840.07 The Intellectual Property Of®ce of 1822 [Reserved]
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Art, Classification, and Search
    Chapter 900 Prior Art, Classification, and Search 903.07 Classifying and Cross-Referencing 901 Prior Art at Allowance 901.01 Canceled Matter in U.S. Patent Files 903.07(a) Cross-Referencing — Keep Systematic 901.02 Abandoned Applications Notes During Prosecution 901.03 Pending Applications 903.07(b) Issuing in Another Technology Center 901.04 U.S. Patents Without Transfer 901.04(a) Kind Codes 903.08 Applications: Assignment and Transfer 901.05 Foreign Patent Documents 903.08(a) New Applications 901.05(a) Citation Data 903.08(b) Classification and Assignment to Examiner 901.05(b) Other Significant Data 903.08(c) Immediate Inspection of Amendments 901.05(c) Obtaining Copies 903.08(d) Transfer Procedure 901.05(d) Translation 903.08(e) General Regulations Governing the 901.06 Nonpatent Publications Assignment of Nonprovisional 901.06(a) Scientific and Technical Information Applications for Examination Center (STIC) 903.09 International Classification of Patents 901.06(b) Borrowed Publications for Inventions 901.06(c) Alien Property Custodian Publications 903.09(a) Locarno Classification Designations 901.06(d) Abstracts, Abbreviatures, and Defensive 904 How to Search Publications 904.01 Analysis of Claims 901.07 Arrangement of Art in Technology Centers 904.01(a) Variant Embodiments Within Scope 901.08 Borrowing References of Claim 902 Search Tools and Classification Information 904.01(b) Equivalents 902.01 Manual of Classification 904.01(c) Analogous Arts 902.01(a) Index to the U.S. Patent Classification System 904.02 General Search Guidelines
    [Show full text]
  • European Patent Convention) of 5 October 1973 As Revised by the Act Revising Article 63 EPC of 17 December 1991 and the Act Revising the EPC of 29 November 20001
    Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) of 5 October 1973 as revised by the Act revising Article 63 EPC of 17 December 1991 and the Act revising the EPC of 29 November 20001 Footnotes and cross-references are added for the convenience of the reader; they do not form part of the official text. 1 The new text of the Convention adopted by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation by decision of 28 June 2001 (see OJ EPO 2001, Special edition No. 4, p. 55) has become an integral part of the Revision Act of 29 November 2000 under Arti- cle 3(2), second sentence, of that Act. 1 European Patent Convention April 2021 PREAMBLE 8 PART I GENERAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS 9 Chapter I General provisions 9 Article 1 European law for the grant of patents 9 Article 2 European patent 9 Article 3 Territorial effect 9 Article 4 European Patent Organisation 9 Article 4a Conference of ministers of the Contracting States 10 Chapter II The European Patent Organisation 10 Article 5 Legal status 10 Article 6 Headquarters 10 Article 7 Sub-offices of the European Patent Office 10 Article 8 Privileges and immunities 10 Article 9 Liability 11 Chapter III The European Patent Office 11 Article 10 Management 11 Article 11 Appointment of senior employees 12 Article 12 Duties of office 13 Article 13 Disputes between the Organisation and the employees of the European Patent Office 13 Article 14 Languages of the European Patent Office, European patent applications and other documents 13 Article 15 Departments entrusted
    [Show full text]
  • Title Glossary
    GLOSSARY A Word About Title Language The title industry has its own language. Many of its words and idioms are derived from the language of the law while others are common words given special meaning related to land titles. There are also words and phrases coined over the years by the title industry itself. While functions of the title industry are substantially the same throughout the nation, words describing or relating to the same thing often differ considerably in various parts of the country. Also, in many instances, several different words have substantially the same meaning. You will learn that a "closing" in one area is called a "settlement" in another; that a "take-off" is not a strip tease, or a "joint take-off" a marijuana orgy. You will also learn that a title plant is not something green growing in a garden; that an attachment is not an amorous affinity; that a suit is not a garment or wearing apparel; that an execution is not a public hanging; that prescription is not medication prepared at a drug store; that "writ" is not a colloquial past participle of "write;" that to condemn is not to censure or criticize; and that courts which deal with wills and estates of deceased persons are called "Ordinary's Court" in some states, in others "Orphan's Court," while in others they are called "Probate Court" and in still others, "Surrogate Court". Title company employees should know their industry's language. To assist you in this regard we have compiled this glossary of words and terms used in the title industry.
    [Show full text]