Skip to main content

USPTO, the European Patent Office and the Japan Patent Office to Expand Patent Prosecution Highway Work Share Program

WASHINGTON - The Commerce Department’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office, and the Japan Patent Office -- collectively referred to as the Trilateral Offices -- today entered into a series of bilateral agreements to expand the existing Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) work share program. These new PPH agreements between the Trilateral Offices will use international search reports, written opinions, and international preliminary examination reports developed within the framework of the international Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) will greatly expand the availability of the PPH program.

PPH agreements streamline the patent system and promote expeditious and high-quality patent examination among participating offices by allowing patent examiners to avail themselves of work product from other patent offices. Under existing PPH agreements, an applicant receiving an allowable determination from one patent office on at least one claim in an application may request that the corresponding application filed with another office advance for faster examination. By coordinating patentable results between both nations' offices, applicants can expect to obtain patents in both nations more quickly.

Until now, the PPH program has been limited to the utilization of search and examination results of national applications between cross filings under the Paris Convention. These new agreements greatly expand the potential of the PPH program. By permitting a Trilateral Office to draw upon the positive examination result from the PCT work product from another Trilateral Office, the PPH will now be available to a larger number of applicants. This will make it easier and quicker for a patent applicant to obtain patent protection in certain other countries.

“The Patent Prosecution Highway is one of our key work sharing vehicles, and this agreement will add a new dimension to it,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos. “By expanding it for use in the PCT framework, we create an opportunity to increase its benefits to both users and offices, while strengthening the PCT system itself.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more