DOCSLIB.ORG

Patent Litigation in the Oil and Gas Sector, As Well As IP Disputes Involving Offshore and Maritime Technology and the Transportation Sector

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patent Litigation in the Oil and Gas Sector, As Well As IP Disputes Involving Offshore and Maritime Technology and the Transportation Sector GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDE NORWAY Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top ranked lawyers ContributingLAW AND PRACTICE: Editor p.2 DaleContributed Cendali by BAHRKingZhong & Lun Spalding Law Firm KirklandThe ‘Law & Practice’Ellis LLP sections provide easily accessible information on navigating the legal system when conducting business in the jurisdic- tion. Leading lawyers explain local law and practice at key transactional Patent stagesLitigation and for crucial aspects of doing business. TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS: p.<?> Contributed by Hogan Lovells (CIS) The ‘Trends & Developments’ sections give an overview of current trends and developments in local legal markets. Leading lawyers ana- Norway lyse particular trends or provide a broader discussion of key develop- BAHR ments in the jurisdiction. chambers.com NORWAY Law AND PracTICE Law and Practice Contributed by BAHR Contents 1. Types of Intellectual Property Rights & Grant 4. Revocation/Cancellation p.9 Procedure p.3 4.1 Reasons and Remedies for Revocation/ 1.1 Types of Intellectual Property Rights p.3 Cancellation p.9 1.2 Grant Procedure p.3 4.2 Partial Revocation/Cancellation p.9 1.3 Timeline for Grant Procedure p.4 4.3 Amendments in Revocation/Cancellation 1.4 Term of Each Intellectual Property Right p.4 Proceedings p.9 1.5 Rights and Obligations of Owner of 4.4 Revocation/Cancellation and Infringement p.9 Intellectual Property Right p.4 5. Trial & Settlement p.10 1.6 Further Protection After Lapse of Maximum 5.1 Special Procedural Provisions for Intellectual Term p.5 Property Rights p.10 1.7 Third-Party Rights to Participate in Grant 5.2 Decision Makers p.10 Proceedings p.5 5.3 Settling the Case p.10 1.8 Remedies Against Refusal to Grant Intellectual Property Right p.5 5.4 Other Court Proceedings p.10 1.9 Consequences of Failure to Pay Annual Fees p.5 6. Remedies p.10 2. Initiating a Lawsuit p.5 6.1 Remedies for the Patentee p.10 2.1 Actions Available Against Infringement p.5 6.2 Rights of Prevailing Defendants p.10 2.2 Third-Party Remedies to Remove Effects of 6.3 Types of Remedies p.10 Intellectual Property Rights p.6 6.4 Injunctions Pending Appeal p.11 2.3 Courts with Jurisdiction p.6 7. Appeal p.11 2.4 Specialised Bodies/Organisations for the 7.1 Special Provisions for Intellectual Property Resolution of Disputes p.6 Proceedings p.11 2.5 Prerequisites to Filing a Lawsuit p.6 7.2 Type of Review p.11 2.6 Legal Representation p.7 8. Costs p.11 2.7 Interim Injunctions p.7 8.1 Costs Before Filing a Lawsuit p.11 2.8 Protection for Potential Opponents p.7 8.2 Calculation of Court Fees p.11 2.9 Special Limitation Provisions p.7 8.3 Responsibility for Paying Costs of Litigation p.11 2.10 Mechanisms to Obtain Evidence and Information p.7 9. Alternative Dispute Resolution p.11 2.11 Initial Pleading Standards p.7 9.1 Type of Actions for Intellectual Property p.11 2.12 Representative or Collective Action p.8 10. Assignment and Licensing p.11 2.13 Restrictions on Assertion of Intellectual 10.1 Requirements or Restrictions for Assignment Property Right p.8 of Intellectual Property Rights p.11 3. Infringement p.8 10.2 Procedure for Assigning an Intellectual 3.1 Necessary Parties to an Action for Infringement p.8 Property Right p.11 3.2 Direct and Indirect Infringement p.8 10.3 Requirements or Restrictions to License an 3.3 Scope of Protection for an Intellectual Intellectual Property Right p.11 Property Right p.8 10.4 Procedure for Licensing an Intellectual 3.4 Defences Against Infringement p.8 Property Right p.12 3.5 Role of Experts p.8 3.6 Procedure for Construing the Terms of the Patent’s Claim p.9 2 Law AND PracTICE NORWAY Advokatfirmaet BAHR AShas an IP department consist- global and Norwegian clients since 1966, with a strong em- ing of 11 lawyers specialised in IP dispute resolution, IP phasis on teamwork. The firm’s key practice areas in patent transactions, and advising clients on all aspects of IP. All of litigation are within life sciences, focusing on pharmaceuti- BAHR’s lawyers are located in Oslo, Norway. BAHR is one cal patent disputes, the oil and gas sector, and offshore and of the best-known and most international firms in Norway, maritime technology. and has been successfully representing and advising leading Author Knut Sverre Skurdal Andresen is deputy head of BAHR’s IP department and specialises in IP dispute resolution within life sciences, particularly in pharmaceutical patent and trade mark disputes and patent litigation in the oil and gas sector, as well as IP disputes involving offshore and maritime technology and the transportation sector. He also assists international and Norwegian clients with IP transactions, and is a preferred strategic counsel in Norwegian IP law. He is a member of the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW) and a co-author of the online annotated Norwegian Civil Procedure Act. 1. Types of Intellectual Property Rights granted. The Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO) & Grant Procedure is the receiver of Norwegian national patent applications. This also applies if an applicant in Norway (or a Norwe- 1.1 Types of Intellectual Property Rights gian citizen elsewhere) wishes to file an international pat- The Norwegian legal system provides two different types of ent application according to the Patent Co-operation Treaty intellectual property rights for the protection of inventions: (PCT) or obtain a European Patent, cf the European Patent patents and trade secrets. These types of intellectual property Convention (EPC). rights are based on statutory law, as further interpreted in case law. A national patent application must include a detailed description of the invention, patent claims, and the appli- Patent protection is available for inventions that are new and cation form. After payment of the application fee, NIPO have inventive step compared to prior art, and are suited for controls whether the formal requirements are met. If they industrial use. There are exceptions on what is not deemed are not, the applicant will receive a notification with a short to be a patentable invention, such as a discovery or an animal deadline for rectifying any formal discrepancies. species. Within five-seven months the applicant will receive NIPO’s At present, there is no definition of a trade secret in Norwe- first assessment of the patentability of the invention. This gian statutory law. In case law and judicial theory, the term is includes NIPO’s first assessment of the available prior art. believed to include information that is specific to a business, The applicant will be given the opportunity to rectify any of significance for the business, and that the business has deficiencies identified by NIPO within a set deadline. Exam- taken steps to keep secret. ples of deficiencies may be that certain or all patent claims are not novel or do not have inventive step, that certain pat- The Norwegian legislature is incorporating EU Directive ent claims may only be granted in an amended form, or that 2016/943 into Norwegian law, and a new Trade Secret Act the applicant needs to make certain format changes to make that will replace the current provisions has been proposed. the patent suited for publication. If the applicant does rectify the deficiencies, the patent may be granted. Often NIPO will 1.2 Grant Procedure continue to assess the application based on the applicant’s A patent right arises when and if a patent application, filed by response. If the applicant does not respond within the dead- the inventor or otherwise rightful owner of the invention, is line, the application may be denied. However, if the applicant 3 NORWAY Law AND PracTICE does respond and complies with NIPO’s request within four protection, and there is no application for or registration months after the deadline, the application may be reopened of the right. by paying a fee. 1.3 Timeline for Grant Procedure Once all deficiencies are rectified and NIPO considers the Statistics from NIPO state that the average duration of the requirements for patentability to be present, the application grant procedure for a national patent is 3.6 years. may be granted if the applicant still desires so and pays the fee for granting. After payment of this fee, it is published The application is published 18 months after the filing date. in the Norwegian Patent Gazette that the patent has been All public documents related to the grant procedure, includ- granted. The patent is also included in the patent registry. ing correspondence with NIPO, are subsequently published online. If the applicant withdraws the application before 18 If an application for a European patent is filed with NIPO, months have passed, it does not become public. NIPO forwards it to the European Patent Office (EPO). Once a European patent is granted, it must be validated in Nor- The inventor does not need representation to initiate grant way. The holder must apply for validation, which includes proceedings. Nevertheless, representation is often sought, a translation of the patent into Norwegian, within three especially by professionals and for complex patent appli- months of EPO publishing the European patent. For patents cations. The average costs to grant differ for small- and published by EPO in English, it is sufficient to translate the medium-sized enterprises, which receive a reduced rate, patent claims into Norwegian. For patents granted by EPO and other enterprises. For other enterprises, the application in French or German, the title and description must also be and grant costs total NOK5,850 for patents with up to ten translated into either English or Norwegian.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Global Patent Prosecution Highway: Enhancing Attractiveness for Applicants and Patent Offices
    JULY 2015 COMMENTARY The Global Patent Prosecution Highway: Enhancing Attractiveness for Applicants and Patent Offices History of Patent Prosecution Highways Office (“SIPO”)—cooperate to improve efficiency and During the last couple of years, a considerable num- address the backlogs in applications worldwide. ber of Patent Prosecution Highway (“PPH”) programs between national and regional patent offices were However, PPH programs are not just limited to the launched. Five years ago, we commented on those world’s largest IP offices. A large number of national involving the European Patent Office (“EPO”), the offices of various countries around the globe, includ- United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), ing the German Patent and Trademark Office (“GPTO”), and the Japan Patent Office (“JPO”).1 Since then, the profit immensely from PPH programs by tightening their programs have been refined and largely expanded. cooperation with the various participating patent offices. Most PPH programs are initially limited to trial peri- A PPH provides a framework in which an application ods of one to three years, so that their feasibility can whose claims have been determined to be patent- be assessed. Depending on the outcome of these able by an Office of First Filing or Office of Earlier assessments, the trials are extended or the programs Examination (“OEE”) is eligible to go through an accel- are stopped. However, the assessments of unsuc- erated examination in an Office of Second Filing or cessful programs are helpful in devising new trial pro- Office of Later Examination (“OLE”) with a simple pro- grams. In that way, PPH programs are continuously cedure, upon an applicant’s request.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group
    Annex 1 E PCT/WG/11/27 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: JANUARY 11, 2019 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group Eleventh Session Geneva, June 18 to 22, 2018 REPORT adopted by the Working Group 1. The Patent Cooperation Treaty Working Group held its eleventh session in Geneva from June 18 to 22, 2018. 2. The following members of the Working Group were represented at the session: (i) the following Member States of the International Patent Cooperation Union (PCT Union): Algeria, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe (69); and (ii) the following intergovernmental organizations: the European Patent Office (EPO), the Nordic Patent Institute (NPI), and the Visegrad Patent Institute (VPI) (3). 3. The following Member States of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Union) participated in the session as an observer: Mauritius, Yemen (2). 4. The following intergovernmental organizations were represented by observers: African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), African Union (AU), Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO), European Union (EU), Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office), South Centre (7).
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group
    PCT/WG/13/15 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: JUNE 30, 2021 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group Thirteenth Session Geneva, October 5 to 8, 2020 REPORT adopted by the Working Group 1. The Patent Cooperation Treaty Working Group held its thirteenth session in Geneva from October 5 to 8, 2020. The session took place as a hybrid meeting due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 2. The following members of the Working Group were represented at the session: (i) the following Member States of the International Patent Cooperation Union (PCT Union): Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe (65); and (ii) the following intergovernmental organizations: the European Patent Office (EPO), the Nordic Patent Institute (NPI), the Visegrad Patent Institute (VPI) (3). 3. The following Member States of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Union) participated in the session as
    [Show full text]
  • Influential Women in IP 2020 Editor’S Note 3 WIPR INFLUENTIAL WOMEN in IP 2020
    2020 Influential Women Celebrating the best and brightest ALSO IN THIS ISSUE: ‘Bro culture’ Hidden stigma The great exodus Silicon Valley’s Are D&I initiatives leaving Why are minorities worst-kept secret disability behind? leaving law? www.worldipreview.com Better Together Become a member of the International Trademark Association community and enjoy these exclusive benefits! Belonging to INTA Means… Connections with global brand owners and intellectual property professionals Reliable, in-depth legal resources Benchmarking best practices and future trends Leadership, volunteer, and professional development opportunities + Up to 30 percent member discount on INTA’s live and online educational programs Visit www.inta.org to join/renew membership, and learn about our upcoming events. INTA_BETTER TOGETHER AD.indd 2 3/9/20 7:16 PM WIPR Influential Women in IP 2020 www.worldipreview.com Editor’s Note 3 WIPR INFLUENTIAL WOMEN IN IP 2020 WOMEN WIPR INFLUENTIAL 2020 Infl uential Women Celebrating the best and brightest ALSO IN THIS ISSUE: ‘Bro culture’ Hidden stigma The great exodus Silicon Valley’s Are D&I initiatives leaving Why are minorities worst-kept secret disability behind? leaving law? A NEWTON MEDIA PUBLICATION A NEWTON The good work www.worldipreview.com must go on I began this project in the hope of doing my part to celebrate the work women have done, and will continue to do, in the IP sector. We published the inaugural issue in early 2019, a landmark year for women in law. It marked the centenary since women were allowed to become barristers Published by: Newton Media Limited and solicitors in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Study on the Quality of the Patent System in Europe
    Ref. Ares(2012)1471488 - 11/12/2012 Study on the quality of the patent system in Europe Tender MARKT/2009/11/D Contract Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union 2009/S 147-214675 of 04/08/2009 March 2011 Authors: Giuseppe Scellato* (Coordinator) Mario Calderini* Federico Caviggioli* Chiara Franzoni* Elisa Ughetto* Evisa Kica1 Victor Rodriguez1 * Politecnico di Torino, DISPEA, IP Finance Institute, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy. 1 Twente University, School of Management and Governance, Department of Legal and Economic Governance Studies, Institute for Governance Studies, Centre for European Studies, P.O. Box 217, NL-7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands. DG MARKT PATQUAL Disclaims: This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors. 2 DG MARKT PATQUAL Definitions and abbreviations: ARIPO African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation DKPTO Danish Patent and Trademark Office DPMA German Patent and Trademark Office ECLA European Patent Classification EESR Extended European Search Report EPC European Patent Convention EPN European Patent Network EPO European Patent Office EQMS European Quality Management System EQS European Quality System ESOP European Search Opinion EU European Union HPO Hungarian Patent Office INPI Portuguese Institute of Industrial Property IPC International Patent Classification IPEA International Preliminary Examining Authority ISA International Search Authority ISO International
    [Show full text]
  • MPEP Chapter 1800
    Chapter 1800 Patent Cooperation Treaty 1842 Basic Flow Under the PCT 1801 Basic Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) 1843 The International Search Principles 1843.01 Prior Art for Chapter I Processing 1802 PCT Definitions 1843.02 Certain Subject Matter Need Not Be Searched 1803 Reservations Under the PCT Taken by 1843.03 No Search Required if Claims Are Unclear the United States of America 1843.04 Procedure for Claims Not Required To Be 1805 Where to File an International Application Searched and for Claims That Are Unclear 1807 Agent or Common Representative and General 1843.05 Time Limit for Establishing the International Power of Attorney Search Report and the Written Opinion of the 1808 Change in or Revocation of the Appointment International Searching Authority of an Agent or a Common Representative 1844 The International Search Report 1810 Filing Date Requirements 1844.01 Preparing the International Search Report 1812 Elements of the International Application (Form PCT/ISA/210) 1817 PCT Member States 1845 Written Opinion of the International Searching 1817.01 Designation of States in International Authority Applications Having an International Filing 1845.01 Preparing the Written Opinion of the Date on or After January 1, 2004 International Searching Authority (Form PCT/ 1817.01(a) Designation of States and Precautionary ISA/237) Designations in International Applications 1845.02 Notification of Transmittal of the International Having an International Filing Date Before Search Report and the Written Opinion of the January 1, 2004 International
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence from Accession to the European Patent Convention
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL PATENT SYSTEMS: EVIDENCE FROM ACCESSION TO THE EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION Bronwyn Hall Christian Helmers Working Paper 24207 http://www.nber.org/papers/w24207 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 January 2018 We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the European Patent Office (EPO) for the preparation of the first draft and comments from Steve Bond, Mike Devereux, Christian Fons- Rosen, Nikolaus Thumm, and Andy Toole. The views expressed here are those of the authors. They are not necessarily those of the European Patent Office. The paper was presented at the 12th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference at Stanford, the 7th Annual EPIP Conference in Leuven, the JRC-IPTS in Sevilla, the 5th Annual Searle Center Research Roundtable on Patents and Technology Standards, the 7th ZEW/MaCCI Conference on the Economics of Innovation and Patenting, IPSDM in Mexico City, a seminar at Oxford Said Business School, Santa Clara University, and the EEA-ESEM 2016 in Geneva. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2018 by Bronwyn Hall and Christian Helmers. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. The Impact of International Patent Systems: Evidence from Accession to the European Patent Convention Bronwyn Hall and Christian Helmers NBER Working Paper No.
    [Show full text]
  • PCT COMMITTEE for TECHNICAL COOPERATION Twenty-Second
    E PCT/CTC/22/2 ORIGINAL: English WIPO DATE: July 31, 2006 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION GENEVA INTERNATIONAL PATENT COOPERATION UNION (PCT UNION) PCT COMMITTEE FOR TE CHNICAL COOPERATION Twenty -Second Session Geneva, September 25 to Oct ober 3, 2006 ADVICE TO THE ASSEMB LY OF THE PCT UNION ON THE PROPOSED APPOINTMENT OF THE NORDIC PATENT INSTITU TE AS AN INTERNATION AL SEARCHING AND PRELIM INARY EXAMINING AUTH ORITY UNDER THE PCT Document prepared by the International Bureau 1. The appointment of International Searching Authorities (ISAs) and International Preliminary Examining Authorities (IPEAs) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is a matter for the Assembly of the PCT Union and is governed by Articles 16 and 32(3) of the PCT. 2. In a letter dated July 7, 2006, the text of which appears in the Appendix, the Director General of the Danish Patent and Trademark Office, the Director General of the Icelandic Patent Office and the Director General of the Norwegian Patent Office have expressed the wish that the Nordic Patent Institute (NPI) be appointed as an ISA and IPEA. 3. Articles 16(3)(e) and 32(3) of the PCT require that, before the Assembly makes a decision on such an appointment, it shall seek the advice of the PCT Committee for Technical Cooperation. The Committee’s advice, which is sought by the present document, will be submitted to the Assembly during its 35th session, which is being held during the same period as the sessio n of the Committee. 4. The Committee is invited to give its advice on this matter.
    [Show full text]
  • ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2
    ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes are two-letter country codes defined in ISO 3166-1, part of the ISO 3166 standard[1] published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), to represent countries, dependent territories, and special areas of geographical interest. They are the most widely used of the country codes published by ISO (the others being alpha-3 and numeric), and are used most prominently for the Internet's country code top-level domains (with a few exceptions). They are also used as country identifiers extending the postal code when appropriate within the international postal system for paper mail, and has replaced the previous one consisting one-letter codes. They were first included as part of the ISO 3166 standard in its first edition in 1974. Contents Uses and applications A map of Europe, with ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes in place of the full Perfect implementations names of countries and other territories. 'Exceptional reservations' codes EU and UK are not shown. Imperfect implementations Current codes Decoding table Officially assigned code elements User-assigned code elements Reserved code elements Exceptional reservations Transitional reservations Indeterminate reservations Codes currently agreed not to use Deleted codes See also References Sources and external links Uses and applications The ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes are used in different environments and are also part of other standards. In some cases they are not perfectly implemented. Perfect implementations The ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes are
    [Show full text]
  • ST.3 Changes
    HANDBOOK ON INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION Ref.: Standards – ST.3 Changes STANDARD ST.3 MARCH 2007 CHANGES Pages INTRODUCTION 1 Paragraph 3, revised March 2007 – SDWG/8.................................................................. 1 Paragraph 6, revised March 2007 – SDWG/8.................................................................. 1 Paragraph 10, revised March 2007 – SDWG/8................................................................ 1 ANNEX A, Section 1 - LIST OF STATES, OTHER ENTITIES, AND THEIR CODES 2 New name for ‘‘Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP)’’, updated March 2007 - SDWG/8 ................................................................................. 2 New code for ‘‘Nordic Patent Institute (NPI)’’, added March 2007 - SDWG/8 ................. 3 ANNEX A, Section 2 - LIST OF CODES AND NAMES OF STATES AND OTHER ENTITES 5 New name for ‘‘Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP)’’, updated March 2007 - SDWG/8 ................................................................................. 5 New code for ‘‘Nordic Patent Institute (NPI)’’, added March 2007 - SDWG/8 ................. 7 ANNEX B, Section 2 – STATES OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT NO LONGER EXIST 9 Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro, added March 2007 - SDWG/8 ............................... 9 NOTES 9 Benelux Office for Intellectual Property, note revised March 2007 – SDWG/8................ 9 Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro, note added March 2007 – SDWG/8 ...................... 9 en / 03-03-01 Date: April 2007 HANDBOOK ON INDUSTRIAL
    [Show full text]
  • Pct/Ctc/30/23 Original: English Date: March 16, 2017
    E PCT/CTC/30/23 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: MARCH 16, 2017 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Committee for Technical Cooperation Thirtieth Session Geneva, May 8 to 12, 2017 EXTENSION OF APPOINTMENT OF THE NORDIC PATENT INSTITUTE AS AN INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AND PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PCT Document prepared by the International Bureau 1. All of the existing International Authorities were appointed by the PCT Assembly for a period ending on December 31, 2017. In 2017, the Assembly will therefore need to make a decision on the extension of the appointment of each existing International Authority that wishes to seek an extension of its appointment, having first sought the advice of this Committee (see PCT Articles 16(3)(e) and 32(3)). Information concerning this process and the role of the Committee is set out in document PCT/CTC/30/INF/1. 2. On March 7, 2017, the Nordic Patent Institute submitted its application to extend its appointment as an International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority under the PCT. This application is reproduced in the Annex to this document. 3. The Committee is invited to give its advice on this matter. [Annex follows] PCT/CTC/30/xx ANNEX APPLICATION OF THE NORDIC PATENT INSTITUTE FOR EXTENSION OF APPOINTMENT AS AN INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AND PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PCT 1 – GENERAL Name of Office or intergovernmental organization: Nordic Patent Institute, Intergovernmental Organization established by the governments of Denmark, Iceland and Norway. Date on which application for reappointment was received by the Director General: March 7, 2017 Session of the Assembly at which reappointment is to be sought: Forty-Ninth Session, October 2 to October 11, 2017 in Geneva, Switzerland.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of International Patent Systems: Evidence from Accession to the European Patent Convention
    The impact of international patent systems: Evidence from accession to the European Patent Convention* Bronwyn Hall1 Christian Helmers2 November 2017 Abstract: We analyze the impact of accession to the regional patent system established by the European Patent Convention (EPC) on 14 countries that acceded between 2000 and 2008. We look at changes in patenting behavior by domestic and foreign applicants at the national patent offices and the European Patent Office (EPO). Our findings suggest a strong change in patent filing behavior among foreigners seeking patent protection in the accession states, substituting EPO patents for domestic patents immediately. However, there is little evidence that accession increased FDI by patenting foreign companies in accession countries. Moreover, there is no discernible reaction among domestic entities in terms of domestic filings, although we do find some evidence that applicants in accession states increased their propensity to file patents with the EPO post-accession. Inventor-level information suggests that the underlying inventions originate in the accession states. Key words: European Patent Convention, accession, patents JEL code: F53, O34 * We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the European Patent Office (EPO) for the preparation of the first draft and comments from Steve Bond, Mike Devereux, Christian Fons-Rosen, Nikolaus Thumm, and Andy Toole. The views expressed here are those of the authors. They are not necessarily those of the European Patent Office. The paper was presented at the 12th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference at Stanford, the 7th Annual EPIP Conference in Leuven, the JRC-IPTS in Sevilla, the 5th Annual Searle Center Research Roundtable on Patents and Technology Standards, the 7th ZEW/MaCCI Conference on the Economics of Innovation and Patenting, a seminar at Oxford Said Business School, Santa Clara University, and the EEA-ESEM 2016 in Geneva.
    [Show full text]