tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-50031688342968203612024-03-07T04:00:17.876+08:00NAIP Patent BlogPatent News, Articles & Commentary for IP Professionals in AsiaNAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-81204200379529183712011-06-30T10:59:00.017+08:002011-06-30T11:27:09.690+08:00Trademarking Signs with "China" or "National" in China<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">by Werner Chiu, NAIP Patent Research</span><a><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5oKl-feqo798S9dSrhzyCllB1ZZ86utpAP5cFnCuloBRYA6_2ilovnl1GtARfdO1k3xAVycDIgBpFNRs1-68gp8lPI0hymIMWl0UFejluJAfzv5BDE3Iigt8DpZlEPl4rn9T_CNEXooJV/s400/cntrademark.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5623847067671390802" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;"><span id="yui_3_3_0_3_1309403590856936" class="name"><strong id="yui_3_3_0_3_1309403590856938" class="username"><br /></strong></span></span><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size:78%;"><span id="yui_3_3_0_3_1309403590856936" class="name"><strong id="yui_3_3_0_3_1309403590856938" class="username">Photo by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rvw/">rvw</a></strong></span></span><br /></div></div>This article focuses specifically on trademarking in China when the sign in the trademark application includes the words "China" or "National" or if it is similar to existing government-related designs or objects.<p></p> <p> On August 19, 2010 China's State Administration for Industry & Commerce issued the "Examination Standards for Trademarks Containing "China" and "National" as the First Word" specifically referencing provisions 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 of Article 10 and provision 1 and 3 of Article 11 of China's Trademark Law. The Articles are listed below (in blue) and include a more detailed explanation or interpretation of the listed provisions.</p><span class="fullpost"> <p><strong>Article 10</strong> of China Trademark law states that the following signs shall not be used as trademarks: </p> <p> <strong>(1) those identical with or similar to the State name, national flag, national emblem, military flag, or decorations, of the People's Republic of China, with names of the places where the Central and State organs are located, or with the names and designs of landmark buildings; </strong></p> <blockquote> <p> Explanation:<br /> A sign that bears any similarity to the State name, even in abbreviated or contracted form, both in English (such as CN, CHN, P.R.C., China or PR of China, etc...) or Chinese, will be rejected. The same applies to signs with similarities to China's national flag (red with five yellow stars); emblem (circular in shape, with grain-borders and featuring Tiananmen gate under the five stars); military flag, (the flag of the People's Liberation Army consisting of a single yellow star and the Chinese characters for "8" and "1" on a red background); and "decorations", which refers to any medals or decorations awarded by China's government to individuals or organizations who have contributed to the State or society. Finally, similarities to places with Central and State organs or landmark buildings, including Tiananmen Square, Xinhua Gate, the Great Hall and so on, is prohibited.</p> </blockquote> <p> <strong>(2) those identical with or similar to the State names, national flags, national emblems or military flags of foreign countries, except that the foreign state government agrees otherwise on the use; </strong></p> <blockquote> <p> Explanation:<br /> Using the name of any country, in Chinese, English or the original language, in a trademark, such as "France Bags", is prohibited. Agreement on use from the foreign government must be in written form. A successful trademark application in its "native" country is considered agreement/approval from the government.</p> </blockquote> <p> <strong>(3) those identical with or similar to the names, flags or emblems or names, of international intergovernmentaI organizations, except that the organizations agree otherwise on the use or that it is not easy for the use to mislead the public; </strong></p> <blockquote> <p> Explanation:<br /> Examples include the United Nations, European Union, World Trade Organization and so on, inclusive of full names, as well as abbreviated or contracted forms.</p> </blockquote> <p> <strong>(4) those identical with or similar to official signs and hallmarks, showing official control or warranty by them, except that the use thereof is otherwise authorized; </strong></p> <p><strong> (5) those identical with or similar to the symbols, or names, of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent; </strong></p> <p><strong> (6) those having the nature of discrimination against any nationality; </strong></p> <p><strong> (7) those having the nature of exaggeration and fraud in advertising goods; </strong></p> <blockquote> <p> Explanation:<br /> Any sign that overly-expresses the characteristics or the quality of the goods or services, and easily causes the public to misinterpret the characteristics or quality of the goods or services is prohibited. For example, trademarks such as "National Liquor" white wine or "Ultimate" mineral water, etc., are not allowed. </p> </blockquote> <p> <strong>(8) those detrimental to socialist morals or customs, or having other unhealthy influences. </strong></p> <blockquote> <p> Explanation:<br /> "Socialist Morals" refers to the generally accepted standard behavior and norms of the Chinese people, as well as the positive customs and habits in a certain period of time. "Unhealthy influences" are when the text, graphics or other elements of the trademark adversely affect China's political, economic, cultural, religious, ethnic and other social and public interests and public order. </p> </blockquote> <p> The geographical names as the administrative divisions at or above the county level and the foreign geographical names well known to the public shall not be used as trademarks, but such geographical terms as have otherwise meanings or are a part of collective marks/or a certification marks shall be exclusive. Where a trademark using any of the above-mentioned geographical names has been approved and registered, it shall continue to be valid. </p> <p>Furthermore, <strong>Article 11</strong> states that the following signs shall not be registered as trademarks: </p> <p> <strong>(1) those only comprising generic names, designs or models of the goods in respect of which the trademarks are used; </strong></p> <blockquote> <p> Explanation:<br /> This refers to signs that are similar to China' standards, industry standards, or conventional names, graphics or shapes. Full names, acronyms, abbreviations and common nicknames are included. Examples include as China's "502 glue", "Korea White Ginseng", and "S" clothing. </p> </blockquote> <p> <strong>(2) those having direct reference to the quality, main raw materials, function, use, weight, quantity or other features of the goods in respect of which the trademarks are used; and </strong></p> <p><strong> (3) those lacking distinctive features. </strong></p> <p><strong> The signs under the preceding paragraphs may be registered as trademarks where they have acquired the distinctive features through use and become readily identifiable. </strong></p> <blockquote> <p> Explanation:<br /> Simple lines, common geometric shapes, or unembellished combinations of letters (for example, "C" Clothing).</p> </blockquote> <p>In addition to pointing out the provisions, the Standards further clarified the reasoning behind examinations:</p> <p> 1. Trademark applications comprised of, or containing the terms "'National' + name of good" will be rejected due to "constituting exaggeration and fraud", "lack of distinctive features" and/or "having adverse impact".</p> <p> 2. Trademark applications with "National" as the first word, but without the "'National' + name of good" combination, will be treated differently and rejected due to its harm to fair competitiveness, fraud or negative political influence. </p> <p>So if a trademark application with "China" or "National" in the sign does not contradict any of the above provisions, can it be trademarked? Not quite yet. The applicant must also satisfy the following conditions:</p> <ul type="disc"><li>The applicant's qualifications must be approved by the State Council or a competent authority. The applicant's (company) name must be the same as the name on the trademark registration information. </li><li>The trademark must be identical to the applicant's (company) name or its abbreviated version, which must have also been approved by the State Council or a competent authority.</li><li>The trademark and the applicant must have close corresponding relationship. </li><li>The scope of the goods or services referred to by the applied trademark must be consistent with the approved business scope of the applicant (his/her business).<br /></li></ul> <p>Although China's Trademark Law contains hints of socialism, the Law itself shows development on par with those of other countries. After all, the purpose of trademarks is to prevent confusion between domestic or international names, or create false, exaggerated assumptions. These are the basic tenets of trademarks that every country must have. </p></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-18519945038050005332011-04-21T14:28:00.007+08:002011-04-21T15:56:52.826+08:00TIPO to Reduce Design Patent Annuities<a><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvtDk043T-b95CdE46bQkdzPLRfPKjXi0sZOAdwTgUUkkxjPQhc1-hqoKDyAcHhPRBHunR5R-y5VlCQs73epIdWBv_-DB8YD5iqHMCsOW3LIwcZn086wevAfsKGRcDCeQUgXqHzC1n3sJu/s400/tipodesignreduce.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5597942102587432402" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">by Anita Li, NAIP Editorial</span><br /><br />On 1 July 2011, new patent annuities for Taiwan design patents will go into effect. The draft of the new fee structure was presented at a public hearing on 22 March in order to collect general opinions and feedback before submission to the Taiwan Executive Yuan to finalize the draft.<span class="fullpost"><br /><br />Goal: Increase Design Patent Applications<br />At the public hearing, Director General of TIPO Wang Mei-hua stated that, although the number of invention patent applications has steadily increased in recent years, the number of design patent applications has actually been gradually decreasing. Director Wang also put forth the question that, although the patent annuities for design patent were already significantly reduced on 1 January 1, 2010, is there still room for further reduction? Director Wang indicated that considering the high percentage of small to medium size businesses (SMB) that account for Taiwan’s industrial make-up, the stagnant growth in design patent applications may suggest that design patent fees may still be too high.<br /><br />In order to facilitate the government’s goal in supporting the development of Taiwan’s cultural and creative industry, TIPO hopes to increase the number of design patent applications by adjusting design patent annuities. TIPO believes a reduction in design patent annuities may offer practical assistance to natural persons and small enterprises that are comparatively weak financially. Lower overall costs would help better the environment for SMB in Taiwan.<br /><br />Furthermore, TIPO also pointed out that feedback from industry representatives, who said considering Taiwan’s economic scale, the overall costs of a Taiwan design patent is rather high in comparison with those of other countries. Therefore, TIPO conducted research into the total design patent costs in European countries, the US, Japan, Korea, China and Australia, when drafting the proposal. <br /><br />Based on this research, TIPO proposed the following fee reductions:<br />Design patent annuities: NT$ 1,000 per year from the first to the third year; NT$ 2,000 per year from the fourth to sixth year, and NT$ 3,000 from the seventh year onward. Under the new fee structure, over a period of 10 years the total amount of patent annuities would be NT$ 21,000. If including the NT$ 3,000 application fee and NT$ 1,000 issue fee, the total charge is NT$ 25,000. In comparison with the existing fee schedule, total costs have been reduced by around 40.5%, or NT$ 17,000<br /><br />Furthermore, under the new fee structure, applicants who are schools, natural persons or SMBs will receive additional patent annuities discounts from the first to sixth years. During the first to third year, they need only pay NT$ 200 patent annuities per year, a reduction of NT$ 800. During the fourth to sixth years, the fee will be reduced by NT$1,200 to only NT$ 800 per year. Over then 10 year lifetime of a design patent, total official fee costs, including the patent annuities, application fee and issue fee, would be NT$ 19,000. In comparison to the existing fee schedule, the reduction is around 54.8%, or NT$ 23,000.<br /><br /><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:displayhorizontaldrawinggridevery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery> <w:displayverticaldrawinggridevery>2</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:spaceforul/> <w:balancesinglebytedoublebytewidth/> <w:donotleavebackslashalone/> <w:ultrailspace/> <w:donotexpandshiftreturn/> <w:adjustlineheightintable/> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:usefelayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:表格內文; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} table.MsoTableGrid {mso-style-name:表格格線; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-US">TIPO Design Patent Fee Structure<span style="mso-tab-count:5"></span></span></b><span lang="EN-US"></span></p> <table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:100.0%;border-collapse:collapse;border:none;mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook:1184;mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;mso-border-insideh: .5pt solid black;mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid black" width="100%" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes"> <td style="width:28.78%;border:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="28%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width:13.88%;border:solid black 1.0pt; border-left:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt; padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="13%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Existing Patent Fees</span></p> </td> <td style="width:20.56%;border:solid black 1.0pt; border-left:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt; padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="20%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">New, Proposed Fees</span></p> </td> <td style="width:36.78%;border:solid black 1.0pt; border-left:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt; padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="36%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Fees for Qualified Schools, Natural Persons, SMBs</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:1"> <td style="width:28.78%;border:solid black 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt; padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="28%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">1<sup>st</sup> ~ 3<sup>rd</sup> Year </span></p> </td> <td style="width:13.88%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="13%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">2,500</span></p> </td> <td style="width:20.56%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="20%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">1,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width:36.78%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="36%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">200</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:2"> <td style="width:28.78%;border:solid black 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt; padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="28%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">4<sup>th</sup> ~ 6<sup>th</sup> Year</span></p> </td> <td style="width:13.88%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="13%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">3,500</span></p> </td> <td style="width:20.56%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="20%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">2,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width:36.78%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="36%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">800</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:3"> <td style="width:28.78%;border:solid black 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt; padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="28%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">7<sup>th</sup> Year Onward</span></p> </td> <td style="width:13.88%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="13%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">5,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width:20.56%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="20%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">3,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width:36.78%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="36%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">3,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:4"> <td style="width:28.78%;border:solid black 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt; padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="28%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Total Patent Annuities</span></p> </td> <td style="width:13.88%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="13%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">38,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width:20.56%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="20%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">21,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width:36.78%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="36%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">15,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:5"> <td style="width:28.78%;border:solid black 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt; padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="28%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Application Fee & Issue Fee</span></p> </td> <td style="width:13.88%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="13%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">4,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width:20.56%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="20%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">4,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width:36.78%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="36%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">4,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:6"> <td style="width:28.78%;border:solid black 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt; padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="28%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Total</span></p> </td> <td style="width:13.88%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="13%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">42,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width:20.56%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="20%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">25,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width:36.78%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="36%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">19,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:7"> <td style="width:28.78%;border:solid black 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt; padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="28%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Fee Reduction</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> </td> <td style="width:13.88%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="13%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">/</span></p> </td> <td style="width:20.56%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="20%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">17,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width:36.78%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="36%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">23,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:8;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="width:28.78%;border:solid black 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt; padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="28%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Reduction Rate</span></p> </td> <td style="width:13.88%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="13%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">/</span></p> </td> <td style="width:20.56%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="20%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">40.5%</span></p> </td> <td style="width:36.78%;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid black .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" valign="top" width="36%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">54.8%</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;">Source: TIPO Public Hearing<span style="mso-tab-count: 8"><br /></span>Note: Effective on 1 July 2011<br />Units: NTD</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"></span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;"></span></b></p></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-20092283864238958022011-04-21T14:00:00.002+08:002011-04-21T14:28:11.929+08:00- Press Release - NAIP Tops 10,000 Taiwan Patent GrantsPatent firm North America Intellectual Property (NAIP) has received notice from the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) for issue of its 10,000th patent granted. Patent number M398638, for a display device, was filed on behalf of client Chunghwa Picture Tubes and published on February 21st, 2011. <span class="fullpost"><br /><br />"10,000 patents granted is truly impressive," says NAIP Patent Engineer Manager and Taiwan Patent Attorney Frank Wu. “Unlike other Taiwan firms that mainly translate existing foreign patent applications or focus on design and utility model patents, over 75% of our work is in the complete drafting, filing and prosecuting of high tech invention patents. We are really helping Taiwan companies turn their ideas into patents.”<br /><br />As of March 21st, TIPO's online patent search system shows 10,064 patents granted with NAIP as the patent agent firm of record. Of this number, 9,539 are invention, 450 are utility model, and 75 design patents.<br /><br />"Last year, NAIP reached over 10,000 United States patent applications filed, making us the largest US patent filing firm in Taiwan by volume," NAIP Patent Engineering Management Supervisor Almon Chen. "This 10,000 Taiwan patent grants milestone just proves again the depth of our experience and expertise in high tech patents."<br /><br />With clients including 9 of the 10 Taiwan companies listed in BusinessWeek's Infotech 100, NAIP is renowned in the Taiwan IP industry as a high tech patent specialist with focus on Circuits, Telecommunication, Software, Image Processing, Semiconductor Materials, Memory Manufacturing, Measurement, Opto-electronics, Solar Energy, Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Structures and Data Storage Devices.<br /></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-69432810607235658552011-03-02T14:22:00.023+08:002011-03-02T18:33:58.959+08:00Taiwan Patent Office Fees<a><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 485px; height: 197px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwD7F6Pr230DWX_4Rfo_oro_9fuhh78o0DySvBazI9Fqpuw7H3AqRrC416ao-YEAd3iylWkpBiM5kfdgTI0lqBgTz6NHbshyZjEf4c17GNv7He55nlg6C2udU71PTC5RUFpm0wk17CEJjM/s400/LeadStory.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5579428089921946978" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">by Jeffrey Chang, NAIP Editorial</span><br /><p>When devising IP strategy, for all the consideration given to markets, competitors, suppliers and so on, one thing always seems to be the deciding factor: cost. Although most economies are already two years removed from the global economic crisis, corporate budgets have yet to fully recover, and IP managers need details to shape strategy effectively. And as Taiwan continues to gain greater importance for high tech industries, the costs are no small investment. To understand patent costs, let's take a look at Taiwan Patent Offices Fees, the latest of which came into effect on January 1, 2010</p><span class="fullpost"><br /><p>The absolute bare costs for Taiwan patents from application to grant and the first 3 years maintenance fees are: </p><ol><p><br />Invention Patent - NT$19,000 (approximately US$ 633*)<br /><br />Utility Model Patent - NT$ 11,500 (US$383)<br /><br />Design Patent - NT$ 11,500 (US$383). </p></ol><br /><p>*based on an exchange rate of US$1.00 to NT$ 30.00 </p><br /><p>Don't jump for joy yet—these costs do not include fees for amendments, divisionals, appeals and other options. Most significantly, they do not include agent/attorney fees, which make up the lion's share of any patent cost. But since these services vary widely in both price and quality, we will not cover them here. </p><br /><h2>Patent Office Fees – A Detailed Look</h2>(All Fees in New Taiwan Dollars)<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:displayhorizontaldrawinggridevery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery> <w:displayverticaldrawinggridevery>2</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:spaceforul/> <w:balancesinglebytedoublebytewidth/> <w:donotleavebackslashalone/> <w:ultrailspace/> <w:donotexpandshiftreturn/> <w:adjustlineheightintable/> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:usefelayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:表格內文; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width: 414.85pt; margin-left: 0.55pt; border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="553"> <tbody><tr style="height: 13.5pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 102);"> <td colspan="3" style="width: 414.85pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: solid; padding: 0cm 1.4pt; height: 13.5pt;" width="553"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><b><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Invention Patent Fees</span></b></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Filing</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >3,500</span></p> </td> <td rowspan="2" style="width: 153pt; border-width: medium 1pt medium medium; border-style: none solid none none; height: 13.5pt;" width="204"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:新細明體;font-size:9.5pt;" > </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" ></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request for Early Publication</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >1,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td rowspan="3" style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Substantive Examination</span></p> </td> <td rowspan="3" style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium medium 1pt; border-style: none none solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >7,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 153pt; border-width: 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="204"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >requested within 3 years of filing</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 153pt; border-width: medium 1pt; border-style: none solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="204"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >+ 800/claim in excess of 10</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 153pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="204"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >+ 500/page in excess of 50</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Re-examination</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >8,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 153pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="204"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >+ 500/page in excess of 50</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request for division</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >3,500</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 153pt; border-width: medium 1pt medium medium; border-style: none solid none none; height: 13.5pt;" width="204"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:新細明體;font-size:9.5pt;" > </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" ></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request for correction of specification or drawings</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 153pt; border-width: medium 1pt medium medium; border-style: none solid none none; height: 13.5pt;" width="204"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:新細明體;font-size:9.5pt;" > </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" ></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request for other change(s)</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >300</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 153pt; border-width: medium 1pt medium medium; border-style: none solid none none; height: 13.5pt;" width="204"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" ><span style=""> </span>for two or more changes: 300</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Issue</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >1,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 153pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="204"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:新細明體;font-size:9.5pt;" > </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" ></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td rowspan="4" style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Annuity</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium medium 1pt; border-style: none none solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,500</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 153pt; border-width: medium 1pt; border-style: none solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="204"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >per year (1st-3rd)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium medium 1pt; border-style: none none solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >5,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 153pt; border-width: medium 1pt; border-style: none solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="204"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >per year (4th-6th)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium medium 1pt; border-style: none none solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >8,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 153pt; border-width: medium 1pt; border-style: none solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="204"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >per year (7th -9th)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium medium 1pt; border-style: none none solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >16,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 153pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="204"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >per year (10th & beyond)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request for invalidation</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >10,000</span></p> </td> <td rowspan="6" style="width: 153pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="204"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:新細明體;font-size:9.5pt;" > </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" ></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request for extension of patent term</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >9,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request for compulsory license of a patent</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >100,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request to revoke compulsory license of a patent</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >100,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 27pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 27pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Filing a supplemental brief, reasons for correction or evidence in an invalidation</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 27pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 27.75pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 27.75pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request for conversion of an application into an invention patent application</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 27.75pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >3,500</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table><br /><p>Aside from requisite base costs (in blue), other commonly incurred fees are excess claim or page fees, which were only instituted in January 2010, and the re-examination fee—essentially an additional stage for examination of an application.</p><br /><p>Note that no additional fees are required for accelerated examination, claiming priority rights, delaying publication, or even extensions of term for replies to office communications. Furthermore, no official fees are incurred for filing appeals. Compare this to the USPTO, where filing a notice of appeal incurs a US$ 540 Office Fee.</p><br /><p>Furthermore, in certain situations TIPO will refund the Substantive Examination or Re-examination fee. If the applicant withdraws his application before the first examiner opinion is issued, the applicant may apply for a refund of the substantive examination fee, including excess claims and excess pages fees, or the reexamination fee, including excess pages fees.</p><br /><p>If an English translation of the first page and abstract of the specification is submitted with the application, an NT$ 800 discount is applied to the filing or conversion fee.<br /></p><p><br /></p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:displayhorizontaldrawinggridevery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery> <w:displayverticaldrawinggridevery>2</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:spaceforul/> <w:balancesinglebytedoublebytewidth/> <w:donotleavebackslashalone/> <w:ultrailspace/> <w:donotexpandshiftreturn/> <w:adjustlineheightintable/> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:usefelayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:表格內文; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width: 405.85pt; margin-left: 0.55pt; border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="541"> <tbody><tr style="height: 13.5pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 102);"> <td colspan="3" style="width: 405.85pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: solid; padding: 0cm 1.4pt; height: 13.5pt;" width="541"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><b><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Utility Model Patent Fees</span></b></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 16.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 16.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Filing</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 16.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >3,000</span></p> </td> <td rowspan="3" style="width: 144pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 16.5pt;" width="192"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:新細明體;font-size:9.5pt;" > </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" ></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Filing a divisional application</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >3,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Applying for correction of specification or drawings</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request for other change(s)</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >300</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 144pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="192"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" ><span style=""> </span>for two or more changes: 300</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Issue</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >1,000</span></p> </td> <td rowspan="2" style="width: 144pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="192"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:新細明體;font-size:9.5pt;" > </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" ></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Application for a Technical Report</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >5,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td rowspan="3" style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Annuity</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,500</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 144pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="192"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >per year (1st-3rd)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 15.75pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >4,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 144pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 15.75pt;" width="192"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >per year (4th-6th)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 15.75pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >8,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 144pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 15.75pt;" width="192"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >per year (7th & beyond)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Filing an application of invalidation</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >9,000</span></p> </td> <td rowspan="3" style="width: 144pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="192"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:新細明體;font-size:9.5pt;" > </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" ></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 27pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 27pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Filing a supplemental brief or evidence in an invalidation</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 27pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 27.75pt;"> <td style="width: 216.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 27.75pt;" width="289"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request for conversion of an application into a utility model patent application</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 27.75pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >3,000</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table><br /><p>Aside from required costs, the most common fee is the application for a Technical Report. The Technical Report is a valuable tool for exercising the rights of a Utility Model Patent and is highly recommended, as it may absolve the patentee of damages claims should the Utility Model Patent ultimately be proven invalid. If the Utility Model Patent is revoked or abandoned before the report is complete, production of the technical report will be cancelled and the fee refunded. </p><br /><p>If a utility model application is converted to an invention application, and an English translation of the first page of the specifications and abstract are provided, the conversion fee is reduced by 800 NTD.</p><p><br /></p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:displayhorizontaldrawinggridevery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery> <w:displayverticaldrawinggridevery>2</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:spaceforul/> <w:balancesinglebytedoublebytewidth/> <w:donotleavebackslashalone/> <w:ultrailspace/> <w:donotexpandshiftreturn/> <w:adjustlineheightintable/> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:usefelayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:表格內文; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width: 405.75pt; margin-left: 0.65pt; border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="541"> <tbody><tr style="height: 13.5pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 102);"> <td colspan="3" style="width: 405.75pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: solid; padding: 0cm 1.4pt; height: 13.5pt;" width="541"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><b><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Design Patent Fees</span></b></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 225.75pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="301"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Filing</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >3,000</span></p> </td> <td rowspan="5" style="width: 135pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="180"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:新細明體;font-size:9.5pt;" > </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" ></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 225.75pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="301"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Filing an associated design patent</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >3,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 225.75pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="301"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Filing a divisional application</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >3,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 225.75pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="301"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Re-examination</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >3,500</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 225.75pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="301"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Applying for correction of specification or drawings</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 225.75pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="301"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request for other change(s)</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >300</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 135pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="180"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" ><span style=""> </span>for two or more changes: 300</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 225.75pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="301"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Issue</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >1,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 135pt; border-width: medium 1pt medium medium; border-style: none solid none none; height: 13.5pt;" width="180"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:新細明體;font-size:9.5pt;" > </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" ></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td rowspan="3" style="width: 225.75pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="301"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Annuity</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,500</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 135pt; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: solid solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="180"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >per year (1st-3rd)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >3,500</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 135pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="180"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >per year (4th-6th)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >5,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 135pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="180"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >per year (7th & beyond)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 27pt;"> <td style="width: 225.75pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 27pt;" width="301"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Filing a supplemental brief or evidence in an invalidation</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 27pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,000</span></p> </td> <td rowspan="3" style="width: 135pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 27pt;" width="180"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:新細明體;font-size:9.5pt;" > </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" ></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 225.75pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="301"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Filing an application of invalidation</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >8,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 27.75pt;"> <td style="width: 225.75pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 27.75pt;" width="301"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request for conversion of an application into a design patent application</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 27.75pt;" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >3,000</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <p> </p><br /><br /><p>In comparison, design patent costs are simpler. One particular option of note is conversion of an application into a design patent application, which may be useful if the fast-moving market necessitates strategic changes. If the conversion is made in time, fees from substantive examination of invention application, or technical report may be refunded as well.</p> <h2>Annuities</h2> <p>Another point of note is payment of annuities. At the USPTO, annuities (maintenance fees) must be paid in 3-year blocks. At TIPO, patents are renewed per year, although pre-payment is possible to reduce hassle and risk! And if fees are adjusted during this time period, fees must be re-paid (if higher) or they are refunded (if lower). If annuities are not paid on time, a surcharge of 100% is incurred and the fee must be submitted before 6 months from expiration of the deadline.</p><br /><p>Furthermore, annuities can be reduced under certain conditions:<br /><br /></p><ol><li>A patentee who is a natural person, foreign school, domestic or foreign small and medium enterprise may apply for fee reduction in the amount of NT$800 deducted per year for the 1st - 3rd year; and NT$1,200 deducted per year for the 4th - 6th year.</li><br /><li>A patentee who is a natural person with no capital for annuity payment may apply on a yearly basis to the Patent Authority for annuity exemption.</li></ol><br /><br /><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:displayhorizontaldrawinggridevery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery> <w:displayverticaldrawinggridevery>2</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:spaceforul/> <w:balancesinglebytedoublebytewidth/> <w:donotleavebackslashalone/> <w:ultrailspace/> <w:donotexpandshiftreturn/> <w:adjustlineheightintable/> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:usefelayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:表格內文; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width: 414.85pt; margin-left: 0.55pt; border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="553"> <tbody><tr style="height: 14.25pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 102);"> <td colspan="2" style="width: 414.85pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: solid; padding: 0cm 1.4pt; height: 14.25pt;" width="553"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><b><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Other Official Fees</span></b></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 378.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="505"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Recordal of assignment or inheritance for the right to apply for patent</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 36pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="48"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 378.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="505"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Recordal of assignment or inheritance for the patent right</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 36pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="48"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 378.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="505"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Recordal of license of patent right</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 36pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="48"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 378.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="505"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Recordal of pledge over patent right</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 36pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="48"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 378.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="505"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Recordal of extinguishment of pledge over patent right</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 36pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="48"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 378.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="505"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Recordal of other changes pertaining to pledge over patent right</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 36pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="48"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >300</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 378.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="505"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Recordal of trust of patent right</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 36pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="48"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 378.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="505"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Recordal of obliteration of patent trust</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 36pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="48"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 378.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="505"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Recordal of ownership of patent trust</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 36pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="48"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >2,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 378.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="505"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Recordal of other changes pertaining to patent trust</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 36pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="48"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >300</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 378.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="505"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Applying for a certified copy of a document</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 36pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="48"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >1,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td style="width: 378.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 13.5pt;" width="505"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request for an interview</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 36pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 13.5pt;" width="48"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >1,000</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 14.25pt;"> <td style="width: 378.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; height: 14.25pt;" width="505"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >Request for an inspection of the experiments, models or specimens conducted/submitted</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 36pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none; height: 14.25pt;" width="48"> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:9.5pt;" lang="EN-US" >5,000</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table><br /><h2>Conclusion</h2> <p>Finally, one particularly important area that patent applicants must understand is TIPO's "attitude" toward deadlines and application requirements. In many patent offices, like the USPTO or EPO, in many situations where an application has "died" due to missing documents, late responses or unsubmitted fees, the application may be revived—upon payment of a hefty surcharge. In TIPO, the procedure is slightly different:<br /></p><ol><li>When a person filing a patent application or going through any other procedures in connection with patent matters has delayed beyond any statutory or given time limit, or has defaulted in payment of any fees prior to the deadline fixed therefor, the application filed or the other procedures instituted by him/her shall be dismissed, unless his/her delay to act within the given time limit or his/her failure in payment by the deadline has been corrected before an administrative decision is rendered by the Patent Authority.</li></ol><br /><p>Essentially, if you fail to submit monies or documents in time, you are able to correct the mistake--but only if you are faster than TIPO. No surcharges required. TIPO does notify applicants of missing documents or late payments for SOME options, but ultimately proper submission of many fees and requirements is entirely the responsibility of the applicant. That is why an experienced and reliable patent partner is critical to the success of an application. </p><br /><h2>LINKS:</h2> <p>TIPO Regulations of Patent Fees<br /><a href="http://www.tipo.gov.tw/en/MultiMedia_FileDownload.ashx?guid=7cccfc3a-3953-4b1d-9435-6838cdd5951e" target="_blank">http://www.tipo.gov.tw/en/MultiMedia_FileDownload.ashx?guid=7cccfc3a-3953-4b1d-9435-6838cdd5951e</a></p></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-49247118722741443112011-03-02T11:51:00.005+08:002011-03-02T12:05:22.050+08:00Are Patents Evil? – An Economist's Perspective<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}""><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center; cursor:hand;width: 500px; height: 375px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/2599969114_84c1b92acb.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><p><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">By Bravo Li, NAIP Editorial</span><br /></p><p>As rational members of a capitalist society, we are, for the most part, trained to see monopolies as bad for the market. Monopolies create artificially high prices. They stifle competition. They steal candy from children and other evil acts. We also know, as IP industry professionals, that patents are essentially monopolies granted by the government. Therefore, through specious reasoning, patents are evil. Right? </p><br /><span class="fullpost"> <p>Well, that depends on who you ask. Here, we will take a quick, simplified look at this question from an economist's perspective to answer this question, hopefully once and for all.</p> <p><strong>A Economist's Definition of Patents: Monopolies Granted & Enforced by a Government</strong></p> <p>In economics, a government-granted monopoly is also called a de jure monopoly, which is a coercive monopoly. Potential competitors are excluded from the market owing to regulations or other governmental mechanism of enforcement. This coercive power comes from an exclusive privilege granted by a government to a private individual or firm to be the only provider of a good or service. Patents are examples of government-granted monopolies; so are copyright and trademarks. </p> <h2>How Does a Monopolist Maximize Profit? </h2> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top" width="63%"><p> To understand how a monopolist maximizes its profits (and acts all evil in the process), first we must understand a fundamental tenet of economics: The lower the price of a normal good, the higher the overall demand for that good. This states an inverse relationship between price and demand and a downward-sloping demand curve.</p> <p>Furthermore, suppliers of a product produce more as the price goes up, and less if the price goes down. This means an upward sloping supply curve. The intersection of these two curves is the market price.</p> <p> In a market where supply is controlled by a monopolist, however, the supply curve is comparatively steeper—meaning the price at which a product is sold in the market is higher, but the quantity sold is lower.</p> <p>The monopolist does this simply because it wishes to maximize its profits. For those interested in a brief discussion of that math and economics involved, please see the addendum. </p></td> <td width="3%"><br /></td> <td align="right" width="34%"><img src="http://59.120.20.200//Data/Guest/480/480_70545333/images/pic0001.jpg" height="188" width="200" /><br /> <br /> <br /><img src="http://59.120.20.200//Data/Guest/480/480_70545333/images/pic0002.jpg" height="188" width="200" /></td> </tr> </tbody></table> <h2>Monopolies Are Evil – The Evidence</h2> <p>Monopolies are considered evil because they cause a net loss to a society's welfare or wealth, which is called "dead weight loss"(see graph 2).</p> <h2>Graph 2</h2> <img src="http://59.120.20.200//Data/Guest/480/480_70545333/images/template_clip_image014.jpg" height="384" width="512" /><br /> <p>Deadweight loss is the inefficiency caused by, for example, monopoly pricing. By causing a difference between the pre-monopoly price received by a monopoly firm and the post-monopoly price paid by consumers, the monopoly firm secures a profit, or "surplus", represented by the pink area labeled monopoly revenue. This revenue comes at the expense of the <a href="http://www.econmodel.com/classic/terms/consumer_surplus.htm" target="_blank">consumer surplus</a> (in yellow) and <a href="http://www.econmodel.com/classic/terms/producer_surplus.htm" target="_blank">producer surplus</a> (in blue) that would have existed in the free market equilibrium. The blue "gone" triangle of deadweight loss goes to no one because the monopoly pricing has prevented those transactions. This loss represents the inefficiency and vice of patent monopolies claimed by anti-patent advocates.</p> <h2>But… Not All Monopolies Are Not Evil</h2> <p>In economics, a more benign denotation for "dead weight loss" exists: Rent. </p> <p>Whereas the term "dead weight loss" suggests that monopoly pricing results in overall waste, the term "rent" suggests that society is somehow subsidizing the monopoly's existence. These terms have undoubtedly caused much contention in economic studies. But which one is more accurate for a patent monopoly?</p> <p>The following is the profit maximization formula for a monopolist:</p> <img src="http://59.120.20.200//Data/Guest/480/480_70545333/images/template_clip_image016.gif" /><br /> <p><em>TR(Q)</em> is the monopolist's total revenue and <em>TC(Q)</em> is the total cost. π(<em>Q</em>) represents the profit level of a monopoly producer when the production quantity reaches Q.</p> <p> If for any reason the profit function π(<em>Q</em>) is (or is predicted to be) 0, the production quantity Q of a monopoly will be zero. No rationale producer would be willing to continue any production activity without profit. And as strange as it seems, some situations do exist in which without any government subsidies or "rents", producers would not produce anything—even if buyers do exist.</p> <p>Imagine a subway system. Would any business be willing to build an extensive system that, once completed, could be utilized by any other company without fees? Furthermore, would any company build that subway system if the population of that city were only 1000 people? The issue is in fixed costs and market uncertainty—two areas for which patents and their potential are notoriously unreliable.</p> <h2>Patents Are Monopolies that Need Special Care</h2> <p>Each year, inventors and organizations spend billions of dollars to develop and file their inventions as patents. Each year, some of these inventions go on to revolutionize (or create) markets, even changing the way societies run. But only some. The rest of these ideas, even if they become patents, sit stacked and unused, representing billion of dollars wasted and countless producers run out of business. The reasons why ideas and patents go unused vary, but regardless of the exact reason, the result is simple: despite a potential market existing and potential gain available for capture, the producer sees no potential for profit and therefore does not produce.</p> <p>Fortunately, the potential of ideas are so strong, governments have implemented policies, subsidies and many more methods to encourage their continual generation and commercialization. Patents are simply one of these methods. And, therefore, in this light, we can see that some monopolies, such as patents, do require these "rents". The utility, innovation, and novelty offered by a successful patent can potentially bring huge benefit to society. And these benefits justify paying "rent" to a patent owner for its monopolistic existence.</p> <p> So are patent monopolies evil? With this basic understanding of economics and the nature of market monopolies, we can easily see that "evil patent monopoly" is an overstatement.</p> <h2>Conclusion</h2> <p>Patents do demonstrate some characteristics of a monopoly, specifically: exclusive ownership as a sole provider of a technology through legal privilege and command of supply. The key point, however, is that a patent, which is a government-granted monopoly, differs from a market monopoly, government monopoly, state monopoly or government-sponsored cartels. Unlike a general monopoly with unlimited life span, a patent may easily become outdated before even making the owner any profit. This may be due to the pace of the technological development. It may be due to the official granted time limit. But to ensure that an idea can spread its benefits to others, governments have instituted systems that have created what we now know as Patents. Which are definitely not evil. Just misunderstood. </p> <p>Addendum:<br /> </p><h2>Profit Maximization for a Monopoly – The Math</h2> <p>Any supplier must be aware of two things: Marginal cost (MC), which signifies the increase increment in total cost by producing one more unit; and marginal revenue (MR), the incremental increase in total revenue by producing and selling one more unit. </p> <p>A rational supplier therefore attempts to maximize its profits by producing at the point where its marginal cost is equal to its marginal revenue (MC = MR). A monopolist is no exception. </p> <p> There is a single seller in a monopoly. A monopolist can affect the price and quantity of goods to maximize its profit unlike a price taker whose marginal revenue (MRm) is given by the competitive market price (see <strong>graph 1</strong>). </p> <h2>Graph 1: monopoly market</h2> <img src="http://59.120.20.200//Data/Guest/480/480_70545333/images/template_clip_image017.jpg" alt="7" /><br /> <p>In a market monopoly, though, the scenario is a lower quantity (Qm) of goods sold at a higher price (Pm). The slope of a monopolist's marginal revenue curve (MR) is twice the slope of the market demand curve, compared to the competitive market situation (quantity Qc at price Pc). Consumers have to pay more for the same good, and there are less available. Under this market structure, a monopolistic producer therefore gains profits that a competitive producer could not. </p> <p>In economics, the total revenue and the total cost of a monopoly are expressed by functions TR(Q)and TC(Q), respectively. π(<em>Q</em>) represents the profit level of a monopoly producer when the production quantity reaches Q. The profit maximization of a monopoly can be shown as follows. </p> <p><img src="http://59.120.20.200//Data/Guest/480/480_70545333/images/template_clip_image019.gif" /> --------------<em>eq. 1</em></p> <p>The necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the profit maximization of a monopoly is:</p> <p><em><img src="http://59.120.20.200//Data/Guest/480/480_70545333/images/template_clip_image021.gif" />-----------eq. 2</em></p> <p>Furthermore the production quantity of a monopoly for profit maximization is greater than zero: <img src="http://59.120.20.200//Data/Guest/480/480_70545333/images/template_clip_image023.gif" /> > 0</p> <p><img src="http://59.120.20.200//Data/Guest/480/480_70545333/images/template_clip_image025.gif" /> and <img src="http://59.120.20.200//Data/Guest/480/480_70545333/images/template_clip_image027.gif" />are the marginal revenue marginal cost of a monopoly respectively. </p></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-72449879886337062032011-01-17T13:40:00.005+08:002011-01-17T18:52:17.717+08:00China & Taiwan Implement Mutual Recognition of Priority Rights<div style="text-align: center;"><a><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUiq8MfC0mv-QvNiP_N0tkIxIZlGkL8hPwzvYbc80YXf6nnMenB5pmk3ZELg41bKNUgWebO8NCrbBo6aLwKfQRuRzteR7FVMjds3E5nfdvkfQDwy6VaOcDxd9fY49_tXMcZy2gSoJSsiRd/s400/handshake.jpg" /></a><br /></div><br /><p>By Werner Chiu, NAIP Patent Research & Jeffrey Chang, NAIP Editorial<br /></p><p>Since ECFA and the cross-strait IPR agreement were signed in September, many have wondered when the goals and frameworks established would become reality. But since many political, administrative and even logistical issues had yet to discussed, many were surprised when only two short months later on 11 November 2010, when China's State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO) and Taiwan's Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) announced the implementation of mutual priority rights recognition for patents and trademarks.</p><br /><span class="fullpost"> <p>The announcement formally went into effect on 22 November 2010 and applicants may now file invention, utility model or design patents and trademarks at SIPO, claiming priority from a TIPO application, and vice versa. Priority can be claimed from applications filed on or after September 12th, the date the IPR agreement was signed.</p> <p><strong>Previous Regulations</strong><br /> Prior to the announcement, neither TIPO nor SIPO accepted applications claiming priority from the other office. TIPO regulations were:</p> <p> If the applicant is a national of the People's Republic of China, no matter which country the claimed application is filed in, priority claims not be processed.</p> <p> If the claimed application is an application at SIPO, no matter the nationality of the application, priority claims will not be processed. The only exception would be if the application is a PCT application that originated from China.</p> <p> These two regulations have now been cancelled.</p> <p>SIPO's regulations were similar. If a claimed application was a TIPO application, no matter the nationality of the applicant, the priority claim would be rejected. The regulation was amended on 19 November 2010 to allow Taiwan applications, albeit with limitations in application procedure and format. </p> <p><strong>Dates & Time Limits</strong><br /> Applications filed at TIPO and SIPO on or after 22 November 2010 are eligible to claim priority on applications filed on or after 12 September 2010. </p> <p>Time limits for priority claims are the same as those set in the Paris Convention: twelve months for patents and utility models, and six months for industrial designs and trademarks.</p> <p>Deadlines to submit relevant documents (i.e. copies of application): 3 months for SIPO applications; 4 months for TIPO</p> <p><strong>Fees</strong><br /> Priority Claim Fee: SIPO – 80RMB fee. Failure to submit the complete amount will be construed as no claim</p> <p>TIPO – No additional fee</p> <p><strong>Special Regulations</strong><br /> In addition to some procedural and regulatory differences, due to the complex political situation, SIPO has specifically introduced rules with regards to applications.</p> <p> <span style="font-style: italic;">Assignment of Priority Rights</span><br /> SIPO – A single or multiple priority claims can be relinquished. However, all applicants must consent via a signed or stamped statement.<br /></p> <p> <span style="font-style: italic;">Restoration of Lost Priority Claims</span><br /> SIPO – Lost priority claims may be recovered if: 1) Loss was due to failure to submit requested materials within specified time limit. 2) At least one item is filled correctly in the declaration claiming priority, however a copy of the TIPO application, evidence of transfer of priority claims rights or relevant statement have not been provided within the prescribed time limit. 3) At least one item is filled correctly in the declaration claiming priority, however, the fee was not paid or not paid in full within the prescribed time limit. 4) A divisional application's original application has claimed priority of a TIPO application.</p> <p> <span style="font-style: italic;">Conflicting Phrases/Words</span><br /> SIPO - If any phrases, words deemed contrary to any laws or regulations (i.e. Republic of China, the Country of Taiwan, etc….) appear in the application, SIPO will request the applicant make amendments. If satisfactory amendments are not made within 2 months, the application will be rejected! If the phrases are deemed not relevant to the technical aspects of the application, SIPO may delete words of phrases of its own accord and is not required to notify the applicant.</p> <p> <span style="font-style: italic;">Non-disclosure of Address</span><br /> SIPO - An applicant may choose to not publicly disclose his address and instead list "China, Taiwan".</p> <p><strong>Benefits & Conclusion</strong><br /> Implementation of mutual priority rights now provides applicants with more time and leeway in deciding when to file and can reduce risk of rejection. Previously, when filing for applications at SIPO and TIPO, an applicant would have to apply to both offices simultaneously to ensure an application would not be rejected due to prior art claims. However this involved the risk that the applicant would be in contravention of China Patent Law Article 20 regarding confidentiality examinations. These issues existed in addition to increased costs.</p> <p>After implementation, applicants can now first file in China and request a confidentiality examination, and then after approval of confidentiality examination, file in Taiwan claiming priority of the SIPO application.</p></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-17700980266915208292010-11-10T10:15:00.009+08:002010-11-18T13:51:30.795+08:00Agreement Signed, But Long Road Ahead for Cross-Strait IP Rights<div style="text-align: center;"><a><img style="text-align: center; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjlEcVP0X-3QjubsmQrPAAZ7XNxmLJ4piZYlHqwXdJFhSRuJpCatf7NADJyUtDi4fxUe9yK6kSYM4SA_tpXDEWv18b7hUpnQZ9abUFqvjc7DQwhOgL0iPpejJClTb2UQyYDw-pjp8SDLhq/s400/IMG_0219.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5537792317341815762" border="0" /></a><br /></div><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">by Jeffrey Chang, NAIP Editorial</span><br /><p>On 29 July 2010, amid much political support, political protest and media frenzy over the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, Taiwan and China officials also quietly signed the "Cross-Strait Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Cooperation" (IPR Agreement). Over the past decade, as economic relations between Taiwan and China have increased, intellectual property (IP) has gained in prominence in both business and political discussions. Both sides have long spoken of addressing shortcomings in IP collaboration and the signing of the IPR Agreement sets important goals that both wish to accomplish. However, even a general guideline on how to proceed has yet to be produced and much remains to be discussed and determined.</p><span class="fullpost"> <p style="font-weight: bold;">Two Markets, Two Systems</p> <p>Since the Nationalist party fled to Taiwan in 1949, IP has remained one of the many complicated and unresolved issues. Both Taiwan and China implement their own IP systems. Both administer their own patents. Both are important participants in the global IP industry. However, neither acknowledges the validity of each other's patents. This means a Taiwan patent cannot be enforced in China—and vice versa. Most significantly, priority rights are not recognized. Copyrights, trademarks and plant variety rights also face similar issues, with added complications including copyright authentication and interpretation over well-known places names or well-known brands.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold;">A Framework Agreement</p> <p>The IPR agreement has been touted as a "framework" for future collaboration between Taiwan and China. The purpose, goals, benefits and subjects covered in the agreement can be found in the TIPO press release <a href="http://www.tipo.gov.tw/en/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID=4603" target="_blank">here</a>. Briefly, the agreement aims for:</p> <ol><li>Mutual recognition of priority rights for patents, trademarks and plant varieties.</li><li>Establishment of mechanism to combat illegal IPR activities.</li><li>Establishment of a formal communication platform.</li><li>Copyright authentication service based in Taiwan (currently being done in HK).</li><li>Search and examination results-sharing</li></ol> <p>Overall, the agreement touches upon a broad and wide range of IP areas from improving protection to increasing opportunities for economic development. In addition, many goals—such as copyright, trademark or even patent "squatting"—were written directly to address concerns of IP holders in Taiwan. Both sides have planned ambitiously, which is in line with the current Taiwan government's view that China is an integral part of Taiwan's economic future. </p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Collecting Public Opinion</span></p> <p>After signing of the IPR agreement, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO), together with the Chinese National Federation of Industries, hosted a symposium to hear the thoughts, opinions and suggestions of the Taiwan Public. The two-day event, from 14-15 of July, was split into four discussions, covering:</p> <ol><li>Trademark & Geographic Indicators</li><li>Copyrights </li><li>Patents, Technology Transfers & Trade Secrets </li><li>Prevention of Piracy and Counterfeiting </li></ol> <p>At each event key members of both TIPO and China's State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) were on hand to briefly explain the IPR agreement and listen to participants' opinions, suggestions and concerns. Although no decisions were made on how to proceed with the goals stated, the discussions provided an excellent window into the attitudes, frustrations and expectations of Taiwanese organizations dealing with IP in China. Many shared stories about difficulties encountered with applying for IP rights, enforcement, and dealing with the substantial experience gap between two patent offices. Overall, the symposium was a valuable source of experience sharing and learning about the successes and failures in dealing with IP in China.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold;">First Steps on a Long Journey</p> <p>Although much remains to be done, Taiwan has already begun with minor, but significant adjustments to its IP laws. On 17 October 2010, amendments to Patent Law (Article 27 and 28), Trademark Law (Article 4), and Plant Variety Act (Article 17) were passed that would allow recognition of China patent priority rights. Previously the wording of the laws required the applicant supply documents and proof issued from a reciprocating "country". To circumvent the political mutual non-recognition issue, the wording was changed to allow documents and proof issued from "a member of the World Trade Organization".</p> <p>The next steps, unfortunately, will not be so easily taken. Beyond a general working guideline and schedule, the goals must be reviewed with more specific details in mind—for example, transitional arrangements, cooperation or conflicts with international standards, litigation procedures and many, many more. These topics must be discussed and agreed upon by both sides as well, ensuring that the journey ahead is not just a long one, but also one that is full of complications. </p></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-21438747193547499242010-10-20T18:03:00.004+08:002010-10-20T18:16:16.794+08:00Novelty Grace Periods in Taiwan<a><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkRaNebZo-yqRSVpsLTfdQ4bKLtb72jOpXnJJ5WpWl7m_WIOn-jY4qeCAK7CPEdNeq6VRZGMzQ99nBrB5rGzid89kD2GM7aCPobTaYSocFnw6FQ6MV6aeajK1UBVAO4dfqE4VAc4ZGhlGz/s400/expired.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">by Jason Wang, NAIP Patent Engineering Research</span><br /><p>In Taiwan, a patentable invention must satisfy three conditions: utility, novelty, and inventive step. Generally speaking, if an invention is known to the public before filing, it loses its novelty. However, under certain conditions, if the disclosure was made by the applicant, he can claim a "novelty grace period" in which the invention is still considered novel and patentable.</p><span class="fullpost"><br /><p>A novelty grace period is the allowable time from the disclosure date of the invention to the filing date. It's a special rule that, under a certain conditions, prevents the disclosure of an invention prior to the application to be recognized as prior art during examination. Many people assume the grace period is for the benefit of the inventor, allowing him to disclose his/her invention before filing an application. However, reality is opposite, because of the high risk of losing "novelty" in most or even all the patent offices if something unexpected happens during the period of the disclosure to application. Therefore, to help fully explain the details, here we will explain the grace period rules in TIPO and the risks that an applicant faces.</p> <p> In the Taiwan Patent Act, Article 22, paragraph 2 deals with grace periods, and states:</p> <blockquote> <p>an invention may not be patentable if it has been published, put to public use, or known to the public before applying for patent, unless it is filed within <strong><u>6 months</u></strong> from the date of occurrence of the following causes:<br /></p><ol><li> <em>Where the invention is disclosed as a result of <u>research</u> or <u>experimen</u>t; </em></li><li><em>Where the invention has been exhibited at an exhibition sponsored or approved by the government; or </em></li><li><em>Where the invention has been disclosed in an occasion not intended by the patent applicant.</em></li></ol> </blockquote> <p>Of the three causes, subparagraphs 2 and 3 are well-defined (though proving accidental disclosure is another matter), so here we focus on the first condition, paragraph 1.</p> <p>TIPO's patent examination guidelines goes into further detail about this condition:</p><blockquote>If the content of the invention sought to be patented has been published, put to public use, or known to the public prior because of the purpose of research or experiment, for example, the publication of a thesis, the novelty of the invention is kept if the patent is filed within 6 months from the date of occurrence, which is the date that the content of the invention is available in public, not necessarily read or known."</blockquote> <p>From the example provided in the examination guidelines, we have a rough idea that something like thesis disclosures satisfies the condition set under Article 22, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1.</p> <p>Most recently on 11 December 2009, a draft amendment of the Patent Act passed to the Legislative Yuan for examination, and may take effect in the near future. In Article 22, "research" was removed from the "disclosed as a result of research or experiment" (subparagraph 1) and a second paragraph, "disclosed via printed publication", was added. According to the explanation from TIPO, "research" is something incomplete and requiring further discussion or study. An incomplete invention is not a subject matter of a patent. Therefore, "research" should not be included in consideration. The phrase "disclosure via printed publication", provides a wider range of the conditions acceptable for grace period status.</p> <p>In the previous paragraphs we defined grace period and described the acceptable conditions under TIPO's Patent Act. However, one important fact must be mentioned: unlike in the United States, a grace period does NOT determine the priority date of the patent. Although TIPO accepts the patent applications that disclosed prior to filing and meet conditions set in Article 22, paragraph 2, there are 3 major problems/risks caused by this process:</p> <blockquote> <p> (1) If the applicant claims the benefit of a grace period under Article 22, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1, the invention may lose patentability in some patent offices. For example, China's State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) allows the grace period only if the disclosure is in a national or an officially-recognized international exhibition, or in a national-level scientific seminar. In the Japan Patent Office (JPO), although a similar grace period clause exists, the recognition of "disclosed as a result of experiment" is different from TIPO. So the risk of losing patentability in other countries/regions is a major concern.</p> <p> (2) If the applicant claims the benefit of grace period under Article 22, paragraph 2, subparagraph 2, the "exhibition" in which the invention was disclosed plays a key factor in its patentability. Unfortunately, currently no set definition of "officially recognized international exhibitions" exists. But for example, at the EPO, only the World Expo has been listed as a qualified event for 2010. Therefore, while you can still file a Taiwan patent after an invention exhibited in CeBIT or COMPUTEX, it has already lost its "novelty" for a European patent at the moment of exhibition.</p> <p> (3) There is still a risk of non-patentability even if the invention is disclosed under the qualified conditions of Article 22, paragraph 2, subparagraphs 1 and 2. If another inventor files a patent or discloses his own invention (with subject matter which can be used as prior art against your invention), during the time between your disclosure and your application, that creates a "lose-lose" situation. The other inventor cannot receive a patent because your disclosure has made his invention "non-novel". Also under the "first to file" system, his application or disclosure also invalidated your application because the grace period only allows a prior art exception of <em>your own</em> disclosure. No one is able to receive a patent in this situation—unless you or he can prove that the other achieved the invention by through illegal means.</p> </blockquote> <p>Let's take an example to explain the problem an applicant may have, if he/she does not completely understand the differences between grace period and priority. Assume that Jenny is the inventor of a special controller for the PlayStation 3. She disclosed the controller and how it works at the E3 game show, on 16 June, 2008. She filed her invention on 1 February 2009--within the 1-year grace period offered by the USPTO. On 16 February 2009, Jenny decides to authorize her good friend Huang to produce this controller in Taiwan, so she requests a patent firm to file a Taiwan patent and claim the priority from the US patent. Do you see the problem here? Although the first filing date of the invention was only half a month before her decision to file a Taiwan patent (which satisfies the regulation for the international priority claiming) 7 months have passed since disclosure of the invention to the date of decision to file a Taiwan patent. The application has no chance to meet the requirements for the grace period in Taiwan. In this case, the controller may not be patentable in all patent offices except the USPTO.</p> <p> To summarize, a novelty grace period is a remedial measure for filing a patent if you have already disclosed your invention. But is an option nonetheless. However, please don't assume that this rule erases any and all disclosure, because in many countries the invention may still lose novelty. The best way to secure the novelty of your invention is still to first file the patent. Then you can claim priority of the first filing date of when applying in other countries. Just ask yourself before disclosing an invention: "Is it worth the risk of losing this patent?" I believe you will know what to do next.</p></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-10718294431751566962010-10-01T11:35:00.005+08:002010-10-01T14:10:37.995+08:00Why the Sun is Setting on Software & Business Method Patents<div style="text-align: center;"><a><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPed2KHQBnsAPjYGRjgXlfoN7tVvqMU9fZ-go0gszvtUm4QYK7J62-D8OnUbqO6M8EKX0rIjjIz9xO0la-tySuPgYg8Z70vMGFaQnGiUt8DnkOpPa11_L1sRucxUy5goNRyJI9V0DvwUQQ/s400/grave.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5522954884826646898" border="0" /></a><br /></div><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">by Daniel Gross, NAIP Patent Engineer</span><br /><br />In the almost anticlimactic wake of the Supreme Court's decision on the Bilski vs Kappos case, there seems to be little general consensus in the IP community as to what is patentable. One camp happily believes that by throwing out the machine-or-transformation (MOT) test as being definitive, the Court has further embraced the apparent 1952 Congressional intent of patentability of "anything under the sun that is made by man". Another camp views the results differently, thinking that the Court was actually contracting current scope of the statute and in fact merely added that it is not inconceivable for some future innovation to fail the MOT test and still be patentable. The Court, unfortunately, gave no examples of such an invention.<br /><br /><span class="fullpost">With this kind of legal ambiguity over what is patentable, many IP attorneys are gleefully lining their pockets, while, in an age of multi-multi-million dollar infringement lawsuits, the industries are scrambling to fortify against that suddenly-larger expense in product development and ownership known as uncertainty. Without such a clear example of what is patentable, even the USPTO appears hesitant to stray far from the MOT test, but I think they may be missing the Court's ultimate point. The way I interpret the decision, things might be a mess right now, but the writing is on the wall. The Supreme Court is carefully but surely slamming the door on the patentability of most software and business method patents as we know them by suggesting that they always have been, and still should be rejected as abstract ideas. Having no definitive MOT test just makes rejecting these "inventions" much easier.<br /><br />In the Bilski decision, the Court threw out another bright-line test only to widen the concept of abstract ideas. With Bilski being the first, the Court also gave us a second example of the widened concept shortly afterwards when they vacated the Federal Circuit Court's decision in another patent case. The Lower Court had ruled in Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services (Fed. Cir. 2010) that the claimed medical procedure was statutory because a drug induced modification of a patient's blood chemistry met the transformation fork of the MOT test. However, the Supreme Court directed the Lower Court to reconsider the case in light of the Bilski decision, suggesting that even meeting the MOT test is not enough to make a method statutory.<br /><br />Most software and business method patents seen today would have been considered unstatutory material before the Federal Circuit's 1998 State Street decision, the case usually considered as opening the door for business method patents. Although ruled narrowly on the facts, the Bilski decision specifically singled out this same State Street decision as not being endorsed. "Nothing in today's opinion should be read as endorsing the Federal Circuit's past interpretations of §101. See, e.g., State Street, 49 F. 3d, at 1373."<br /><br />Thus while many believe that the Justices were giving their de facto blessing to business method and software patents, the Court was actually doing exactly the reverse, implying that they were abstract ideas. Before Bilski, if a method passed the MOT test, it was automatically statutory material. After Bilski, this no longer proves to be the case. Why is a paper copy of software code not patentable, yet running the exact same software code on a computer suddenly turn an old machine into a new patentable machine? The Justices are asking the same kind of questions. Similarly, business methods can also be viewed as simply algorithms that use old machines, such as computers, phones, or websites to pass the MOT test, but still be abstract ideas at their core.<br /><br />At the end of the decision, the opinion also included this line:<br /><blockquote>"In disapproving an exclusive machine-or-transformation test, this Court by no means desires to preclude the Federal Circuit's development of other limiting criteria that further the Patent Act's purposes and are not inconsistent with its text.”<br /></blockquote>This is spoken by a Court that wishes to contract rather than expand the scope of §101.<br /><br />In response to the prodding by the Supreme Court in this decision, the Lower Court may take a different approach to developing the requested "limiting criteria" for patent eligibility. Perhaps instead of tackling the difficult job of defining what is patentable without running afoul of the law, it would be easier for the Lower Court to use what has already been long settled as statutory limits and merely define certain classes of subject material as "abstract ideas". To be sure, there would be countless court battles over whether a specific process falls into one of those classes, but there is no statutory problem with rejection of abstract ideas.<br /><br />Defining classes of ideas as "abstract" could be relatively easy. For software: that which does not cause a "further technical effect" and which does not go beyond the inherent technical interactions between hardware and software. Similarly, for any process or method: that which does not cause a "further technical effect" and which does not go beyond the inherent technical interactions between the process and a machine. This basically is how Europe does it and universal symmetry of patent eligibility may go a long way toward easing some of the uncertainties of product development and ownership so prevalent today.<br /><br />Unfortunately, US patent law lacks a specific "technical effect" requirement like that which is present in European patent law, so a "technical effect" requirement in the US might suffer the same fate as the MOT test (ruled as being inconsistent with the text of patent law). Nevertheless, the act of defining certain classes of ideas as abstract is not inconsistent with the Patent Act. It would merely be a generalization of historical interpretations of patentable subject matter and Supreme Court precedents such as Benson, Flook, and Diehr. In contrast, the recent push to expand patentability to software and business methods, however well intended, is in violation of the same historical precedents.<br /><br />In the end, the key point is that the Supreme Court's rejection of Bilski's claims had nothing to do with the MOT test, and instead was specifically based on the rule that claims "can be rejected under the Court’s precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas". The Court even gave us a second example of the same rationale in the Prometheus case. The Lower Court was then basically challenged to find "limiting criteria" for patent eligibility. Again, the key point is "abstract ideas should be rejected".<br /><br />While it is quite unlikely that the Congressional intent of patentability of "anything under the sun that is made by man" will be changed by this ruling, therein may be the solution. People "have" ideas, but "make" products--even digital ones. It may soon be up to applicants to prove that their software or business methods "made" something instead of being abstract ideas they "had" and then just written down or codified.<br /><br /></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-63031185952226036092010-09-03T11:01:00.010+08:002010-09-03T13:44:36.211+08:00NAIP Launches New Newsletter - The IP Observer<a href="http://www.naipo.com/Portals/0/web_en/knowledge/newsletter/enewsletter-01/naipo_ip_news.htm"><img style="width: 551px; height: 359px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYTYITRq-wHEzVWICP5KGQtnPHdIQmWT13xJxqdCuKrHHqepAUeJKqckhuXPZdkb2FDGtvk3Zbl24rRqjrx7JgGs-x-dem97qmfOXdN17CyAaSk4C5DRxzlZ1Dt4BMu21dUyJUIJhefJnp/s640/ipobserver.JPG" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br />NAIP, Taiwan's premier US and TW patent prosecution firms, is proud to announce the launch of a new English-language newsletter--The IP Observer.<br /><br />With the release of the IP Observer, NAIP now releases IP newsletters in three languages--Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, and English--all featuring original content and reports authored by NAIP's knowledge services departments.<br /><br />The IP Observer, which will be released approximately 7-9 times per year, focuses on Intellectual Property Issues in Taiwan. In addition to original articles, each issue of the IP Observer includes reports on noteworthy patent office develops, as well as links to industry news on other media sites.<br /><br />Check out the IP Observer <a href="http://www.naipo.com/Portals/0/web_en/knowledge/newsletter/enewsletter-01/naipo_ip_news.htm">here</a> or to subscribe, click <a href="http://www.naipo.com/survey/activewebsurvey.asp?nsurvey=200">here</a>.NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-63468819724331774642010-09-01T17:58:00.013+08:002010-09-03T13:45:55.969+08:00Intellectual Property in Taiwan – An Overview<div style="text-align: center;"><a><img style="width: 536px; height: 162px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAXLGTf2KZtaTVrYdMjEP1a8tUZdZ5biQvLSv7ko1ZBGeT-pQKvP23iuCIoE3gIM9_-H2U4bufFgJmXUqH7ji4i-PKMew0UIAagN9hYJamfz_ztqtY8JQFK82SWpQ1TySE2BpUGcRfnNol/" /></a><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></div><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">Jeffrey Chang, NAIP Editorial</span><br /><br />Taiwan is among the most active and important countries in the global intellectual property (IP) industry. In major IP markets like the United States, Japan and Korea, Taiwan consistently ranks among the top five filers. And in 2009, organizations and inventors from around the world filed for nearly 80,000 patents at Taiwan's Intellectual Property Office (TIPO). Taiwan's "miraculous" economic growth and transition from small goods manufacturer to a knowledge-intensive, high tech industry leader has made it an integral IP market for many global organizations. As a result, here we provide a broad, (but not exhaustive) overview of IP in Taiwan—its history, patent fundamentals, key figures, statistics and more—to help these organizations and inventors understand more about this influential and growing market.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Origins</span><br />The origins of the Taiwan IP system can be traced back as early as 1911 China, with the establishment of "Handicrafts Incentives Provisional Regulations" (獎勵工藝品暫行章程) by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry. In 1940, looking to improve the existing laws into a more formal system, the Ministry of Economic Affairs researched the patent laws of ten foreign countries and, after four years of debate, discussion and revision, promulgated the first official patent law in 1944. The law was never fully instituted, however, as in 1949 the Nationalist government was forced to retreated to Taiwan.<br /><br />In Taiwan, IP issues were managed by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), and the offices were initially located in Tainan before moving to Taipei in 1972. After a series of major revisions to IP law in the early 1990s, the NBS was reorganized and renamed the Intellectual Property Office in 1999. Since the reorganization, the office has made great strides in expanding the scope and detail of IP laws and regulations, and in tandem with the economic growth of Taiwan, the Taiwan IP industry is now a mature and vital part of Taiwan's economy, covering Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets and Integrated Circuit Layouts.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Patent System Fundamentals</span><br />Much of Taiwan's patent system was drafted with consideration of foreign laws and policies, so the Taiwan system retains thematic similarities to patent systems around world. Taiwan runs a "First-to-File" system and any natural (living) person or entity may file for any of three types of patents:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Invention Patents</span><br /><br />For "any creation of technical concepts by utilizing the rules of nature," (Taiwan Patent Act Article 21). The term of exclusivity is 20 years.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Utility Model Patents</span><br /><br />For "any creation of technical concepts by utilizing the rules of nature, in respect of the form, construction or installation of an article," (Article 93). The term of exclusivity is 10 years.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Design Patents</span><br /><br />For "any creation made in respect of the shape, pattern, color or combination thereof of an article through visual appeal," (Article109). The term of exclusivity is 12 years.<br /><br />The major distinction between an Invention Patent and Utility Model Patent is in patentable subject matter. Invention Patent protection covers a wider range of subjects including devices, methods, substances and biological materials. The scope of protection offered by Utility Model Patents is limited to devices (including their shape, structure and installation).<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office</span><br />The main governing body for IP-related issues is the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO), an administrative agency of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The Office is currently located in Taipei City near the venerated National Taiwan University, with branch offices in Taichung, Hsinchu and Kaohsiung.<br /><br />The current Director General is Wang Meihua, who was appointed in December 2007. Wang graduated from National Taiwan Normal University in 1980, majoring in law, and has spent her entire 30 year career in the Ministry of Economic Affairs, 22 of which have been at the intellectual property office.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />Patent Agents & Attorneys</span><br />In Taiwan, both Patent Agents (專利代理人) and Patent Attorneys (專利師) are authorized to file patent applications on behalf of companies and inventors. Please note that a Patent Attorney is not an attorney-at-law and may not file infringement suits or defend against one. The Patent Attorney Law was established in 2008 as a replacement for the prior Patent Agent standard. Taiwan currently has over 690 active registered Patent Agents and Attorneys.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Patent Statistics</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span><a><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS8KWFNZJamq-XjNsc3jJPO7vfOafLKHBjrPr-_Uq2svzwBS7-Bd9s0c-Q4EOPrzG6e-ee9USRu0n1sE2R6t2H98M9RL-Jb0VaxkaKeh3DYxGpu7uIbBEN3dQDF1tcyafagIJG1p9Ll4pQ/" /></a></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Data From TIPO</span></div><br />For the past five years approximately 80,000 applications have been filed each year for Invention, Utility Model and Design Patents. Invention Patent applications account for 60% or ~50,000 applications, and have accounted for much of the overall application growth, which has been in step with growth in patent offices globally.<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="fullpost"><a><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS8KWFNZJamq-XjNsc3jJPO7vfOafLKHBjrPr-_Uq2svzwBS7-Bd9s0c-Q4EOPrzG6e-ee9USRu0n1sE2R6t2H98M9RL-Jb0VaxkaKeh3DYxGpu7uIbBEN3dQDF1tcyafagIJG1p9Ll4pQ/" /></a></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="fullpost" style="font-size:85%;">Data From TIPO</span></div><br />For Invention Patent applications, residents (i.e. Taiwanese applicants) are not the majority filers, although in recent years the disparity has decreased.<br /><br /><blockquote><em>Top Filers</em></blockquote> <table bgcolor="#333333" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="70%"> <tbody><tr><td> <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td rowspan="2" bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><br /> <strong>Nationality</strong> </td> <td colspan="5" bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong>Applications</strong></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong> Invention </strong></p></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc"><p align="center"><strong> Utility Model </strong></p></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong> Design </strong></p></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong>Total</strong></p></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong>Percentage</strong></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p>TAIWAN </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">22,712 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">24,289 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">4,255 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">51,256 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right"><strong>65.36%</strong></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>JAPAN </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">9,082 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">87 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">1,111 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">10,280 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right"><strong>13.11%</strong></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>USA </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">7,822 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">154 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">442 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">8,418 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right"><strong>10.73%</strong></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>GERMANY </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">1,424 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">10 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">154 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">1,588 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right"><strong>2.02%</strong></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>SOUTH KOREA </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">1,409 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">27 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">90 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">1,526 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right"><strong>1.95%</strong></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="6" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom">Data from TIPO<strong></strong></td> </tr> </tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table> <br /> For 2009, the top overall patent filers by country were Taiwan, Japan, the United States of America, Germany and South Korea. China, though not listed below, has made substantial gains over the years and already ranks number seven, just behind Netherlands. <blockquote><em>Top Resident Applicants- 2009</em></blockquote> <table bgcolor="#333333" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="70%"> <tbody><tr><td> <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td rowspan="2" bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><br /> <strong>Rank</strong> </td> <td rowspan="2" bgcolor="#cccccc"><p align="center"><strong>Applicant</strong></p></td> <td colspan="4" bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong>Number of Applications</strong></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong> Invention </strong></p></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong> Utility Model </strong></p></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong> Design </strong></p></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong>Total</strong></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center">1</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD.</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">2,269</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">818</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">163</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">3,250</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center">2</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p>INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">796</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">20</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">4</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">820</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center">3</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p>INVENTEC CORPORATION</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">455</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">145</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">6</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">606</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center">4</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p>AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">523</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">0</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">0</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">523</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center">5</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p>CHENG UEI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD.</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">25</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">281</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">133</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">439</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center">6</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p>MEDIA TEK INC.</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">343</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">0</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">0</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">343</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="6" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap">Data from TIPO</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody></table> <p align="right"><strong></strong></p> <blockquote><em>Top Non-Resident Applicants- 2009</em></blockquote> <table bgcolor="#333333" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="70%"> <tbody><tr><td> <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td rowspan="2" bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><br /> <strong>Rank</strong> </td> <td rowspan="2" bgcolor="#cccccc"><p align="center"><strong>Applicant</strong></p></td> <td colspan="4" bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong>Number of Applications</strong></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong> Invention </strong></p></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong> Utility Model </strong></p></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong> Design </strong></p></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap"><p align="center"><strong>Total</strong></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="center">1 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p>QUALCOMM INCORPORATED</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">1,230 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">0 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">0 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">1,230 </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="center">2 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p>SONY CORPORATION</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">490 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">0 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">35 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">525 </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="center">3 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p>KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">360 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">0 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">36 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">396 </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="center">4 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p>TOKYO ELECTRON LIMITED</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">330 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">1 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">25 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">356 </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="center">5 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p>INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">352 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">0 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">0 </p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="right">352 </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="6" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">Data from TIPO</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody></table> <strong></strong><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="fullpost"><a><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqybKz1hAx40_OBKBxQYgOMwEmjPDwA-GJMj3DmvmFR4NMYAMI58S8pGlnYOWi27zrOdrpoDB1sKOGitnNTZhoel2DkPQ1Yolw2q4Y_LcQJXQAf1TMX3MPNjleazgonuddFHHaAjFo7IsK/" /></a></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="fullpost" style="font-size:85%;">Data From TIPO<br /></span></div><br /><p> The high tech industry dominates in Taiwan, with the majority of patents related to consumer electronics. When broken down into International Patent Classifications (IPC), over 63% are related to electronics. </p> <table bgcolor="#333333" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="70%"> <tbody><tr><td> <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" valign="bottom"><p align="center"><strong>IPC Sub-Categories</strong></p></td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom"><p align="center"><strong>%</strong></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Basic Electric Elements</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>16.60%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Instruments - Computing; Calculating; Counting</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>10.17%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Electric Communication Technique</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>9.14%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Instruments - Optics</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>5.15%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Health; Life-saving; Amustment - Medical or Veterinary Science; Hygiene</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>5.06%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Other Electric Techniques</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>4.02%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Instruments- Measuring; Testing</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>4.01%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Chemistry - Organic Macromolecular Compounds; Their Preparation or Chemical Working-up</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>2.59%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Instruments - Photography; Cinematography; Analogous Techniques using Waves Other Than Optical Waves, Electrography; Holography</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>2.55%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Chemistry - Organic Chemistry</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>2.37%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Instruments - Educating; Cryptography; Display; Advertising; Seals</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>2.21%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Generation, Conversion, or Distribution of Electric Power</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>2.11%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Instruments - Information Storage</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>2.10%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Chemistry - Dyes; Paints; Polishes; Natural Resis; Adhesives; Other Compositions and applications of materials</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>1.85%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="bottom"><p>Basic Electronic Circuitry</p></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"><p align="right"><u>1.61%</u></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">Data from TIPO</td> </tr> </tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table> <p><strong>Global Cooperation & Priority Rights</strong><br /> In 2002 Taiwan became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and thus adheres to the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. However, Taiwan is not a contracting member of the Patent Convention Treaty (PCT) and cannot be included in PCT applications.</p> <p>Taiwan also has not signed the Paris Convention, although to fulfill the condition of WTO membership, Taiwan recognizes priority rights for applications from WTO, PCT and EPC member countries—provided the recognition is reciprocated for Taiwanese applicants (Article 27 of the Patent Act). This means the majority of non-residents filing applications at TIPO will be able to invoke their priority rights (the grace period is the standard 12 months). One notable exception is China, which does not recognize the priority rights of applications from Taiwan applications and vice versa.</p> <p><strong>On the Horizon</strong><br /> In less than a decade the Taiwan IP market has made significant growth, improvements and advances. Of course, the industry changes quickly. Major amendments to Taiwan's patent law are already in advanced draft stages, and include significant changes such as: providing more options for application restoration; allowing divisional applications even after notification of allowances; and incorporating inventive step into the disclosure grace period. Most recently, Taiwan and China signed a basic framework agreement on IP rights that will influence policy and IP strategies on both sides for decades to come. To stay up to date and informed of these developments, as well as news, IP events and more, be sure to subscribe to the NAIP Newsletter, or contact us at readersvc@naipo.com! </p> <p><strong>Resources & Links</strong><br /> <a href="http://www.tipo.gov.tw/en/index.aspx" target="_blank">Taiwan Intellectual Property Office</a><br /> <a href="http://ipc.judicial.gov.tw/en/" target="_blank">Taiwan Intellectual Property Court</a><br /> <a href="http://www.tipa.org.tw/index.htm" target="_blank">Taiwan Intellectual Property Training Academy </a><br /> <a href="http://naipblog.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">NAIP Patent Blog</a></p></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-14119624480505542292010-08-02T15:30:00.012+08:002010-08-18T09:19:32.569+08:00The 1 April 2010 Amendments to EPO Divisional Applications<div style="text-align: center;"><a><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdZLHM2iVhjGGhYqZd_pwBA_A-cjMtRvoh9Zu5CdsHJK4K9R3mshHv7AF2vF8VsUEm1_iQGUDzliyNFXgBPfjaCCsMntCuSb05cZRxDfxQHFvVF6zJ-KcH5376pnDvbo0H6xBQd29h-ehc/s400/carparts_tacoekkel_25538919.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5500718382689716610" border="0" /></a><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">By Charl Goussard, NAIP Legal Research<br /><span style="font-size:78%;"> Photo by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tacoekkel/" title="Link to tacoekkel's photostream" rel="dc:creator cc:attributionURL" name="Account name"><b property="foaf:name">tacoekkel</b></a></span><br /><br /></div>On 20 August 2009, the European Patent Office (EPO) announced its decision to amend the rules relating to Divisional Applications. Since the publication of this first notice, the EPO consequently issued a number of explanatory notices, amendments to its Guide for Examinations and even a presentation explaining the effects of the amendments of the rules – all of which might pose as an excess of information for the untrained eye.<br /><span class="fullpost">This article attempts to serve as a basic summary, in plain English (where possible), for non-practitioners, of the amendments and various notifications issued by the EPO with regards to the 1 April 2010 amendments to the rules for Divisional Applications.<br /><br />These amendments came into effect on 1 April 2010.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Divisional Application Requirements</span><br /><br />Jumping right in, we'd like to look at the two basic requirements for a Divisional Application filed with the EPO:<br /><br />1. The patent which is intended to be divided must still be <span style="font-weight: bold;">pending</span>.<br />This means that the earlier patent must have been filed, but not yet granted, withdrawn, or deemed withdrawn on the day the divisional application is filed.<br /><br />2. The divisional application must be filed within one of the following periods:<br /><blockquote>a) For <span style="font-weight: bold;">Voluntary Divisionals</span>: within 24 months of the Examining Division's first communication (called an "office action" at the USPTO) of the <span style="font-weight: bold;">earliest </span>application for which a communication has been issued. Thus, in the case of a sequence of EPO divisional applications, the 24 month time window is calculated from the date of the first communication issued for the earliest application in the sequence. Notification of the search opinion does not constitute a "first communication", since it is not issued by the Examining Division. Furthermore, the substance of the first communication is irrelevant for the calculation of the time window. </blockquote><blockquote>b) For <span style="font-weight: bold;">Mandatory Divisionals</span>: within 24 months of any first<span style="font-weight: bold;"> non-unity of invention objection</span> from the Examining Division . Thus, each time the Examining Division raises a non-unity of invention objection for the first time, it creates a NEW time window of 24 months in which the applicant can file a divisional application. Notification of Summons to Oral Proceedings, or the minutes of a telephone conversation with the examiner, can also count as a communication (provided that lack of unity was the basis of the objection). </blockquote><br />However, an objection of lack of unity in a Search Opinion is not considered to be a communication from the Examining Division and will not start the time window for filing a divisional application.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Transitional Arrangements</span><br /><br />Before 1 April 2010, a divisional application could have been filed without consideration of a time window.<br /><br />However, as explained above, the April amendments brought about a change in the time allotted to file divisional applications.<br /><br />To accommodate for the transition the EPO has created a six months buffer period beginning 1 April 2010. Up until 30 September 2010, applicants will be allowed to file divisional applications even though their time windows have expired before 1 April 2010. If a time window is still open on 1 April 2010, but expires soon afterwards, the EPO will allow filings of Divisionals up until 30 September even though the time window has closed prior to that date.<br /><br />The important date to remember in this transitional stage is <span style="font-weight: bold;">30 September 2010</span>!<br /><br />As of the 1st of October 2010, the EPO will strictly apply the new time window for divisional applications.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Language</span><br /><br />The divisional application must be filed in the language of the proceedings of the earlier (parent) application. If the earlier application was not filed in one of the official EPO languages (English, French or German), then the divisional application may be filed in the non-official language of the earlier application. However, a translation will then have to be filed within two months.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Non-compliance with time limitations</span><br /><br />If a divisional application is not filed within the 24 months window period, the application will be considered withdrawn.<br /><br />Further Processing will not be possible (Further Processing is a procedure whereby an applicant can apply for an extension of a time limit).<br /><br />Re-establishment of rights is, however, still available as a means to remedy the failure to observe the 24 month time window—but only if the necessary extraordinary circumstances can be proven.<br /><br />Non-compliance with the time limits set for divisionals can result in fatalities for some potentially valuable divisional applications. It is therefore suggested that all currently pending applications be reviewed in order to secure filing of divisional applications before the 1 October 2010 deadline.<br /></span></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-67251939626350680792010-07-30T14:33:00.002+08:002010-08-02T15:20:34.032+08:00TIPO Announces Ex Officio Telephone Notifications for AmendmentsOn 22 June 2010 TIPO launched a new program, "Ex officio Telephone Notifications for Amendments". The program went into effect on 10 June 2010 and is intended to provide applicants with greater flexibility in when amendments to claims or specifications may be filed. Now, if an invention application is in the examination or reexamination stage, an applicant may submit a request to file amendments. Previously amendments could only be made within 15 months of initial filing or only in response to an office action. Further details can be found <a href="http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID=4561">here </a>(Chinese).NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-67689676222485749152010-06-28T15:05:00.025+08:002010-06-29T14:51:37.999+08:00Taiwan and China Make Strides at the EPO<span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">by Charl Goussard, NAIP Legal Research</span><br /><br />Recently released statistics by the European Patent Office (EPO) confirm a trend that we have noticed over the past 10 years: Asian patentees, specifically Taiwanese and Chinese, are waking up and exploring the possibilities of the European market.<br /><br />As one of the leading patent prosecution firms in Taiwan, NAIP has helped promote this growth. Since 2000 NAIP's European patent applications have grown at a faster rate than Taiwan's overall rate and, based on recent statistics, currently we manage approximately 10% of Taiwan's EPO applications.<span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><br />EPO Patent Applications: 2000 to 2009</span><br />The following is a selection of data released by the EPO showing total patent applications:<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjbJkCP408uNkBZ9p2dhWHdJ2UAntcTr6N1fAIZonYFrgb9g8OM04Rx1h_ku37JvQs2oRZ5zEFgI-0vh89yZqIDWsHQc9npqnSnfCFkyWX0nALYYQRSe8G-VToAqiuyVP-83hCTFdPmu8v/s1600/EPO_Apps%5B1%5D.JPG"><img style="width: 524px; height: 194px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjbJkCP408uNkBZ9p2dhWHdJ2UAntcTr6N1fAIZonYFrgb9g8OM04Rx1h_ku37JvQs2oRZ5zEFgI-0vh89yZqIDWsHQc9npqnSnfCFkyWX0nALYYQRSe8G-VToAqiuyVP-83hCTFdPmu8v/s1600/EPO_Apps.JPG" alt="" id="" border="0" /></a></span><br /></div><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote>Taiwanese Applicants:</blockquote></span><span class="fullpost">Only recently have Taiwanese companies shown interest in obtaining European patents. Looking at (Fig. 1) below, which indicates the percentage increase in the number of applications filed with the EPO by Taiwanese applicants, the number has leaped from 261 applications in 2000 to 1077 applications in 2009. Taiwan has had steady year-on-year increases in applications filed with the EPO – the exceptions being 2007 and 2009, which can be contributed to economic meltdowns.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8RYyWtQ3vgWBg7wbpPBdZ0gCFi3NhGsa30gCapHrwOFAnT89WKZeWiGxG1jIpzM7kCSwPtA02PoPfbZcDpudVszyTZ4FCRNk54RJZ2fl5Py5yfywko18Wkl-sCXig3XI4vCtSQV0rB3oE/s1600/EPO_Apps-tw.JPG"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8RYyWtQ3vgWBg7wbpPBdZ0gCFi3NhGsa30gCapHrwOFAnT89WKZeWiGxG1jIpzM7kCSwPtA02PoPfbZcDpudVszyTZ4FCRNk54RJZ2fl5Py5yfywko18Wkl-sCXig3XI4vCtSQV0rB3oE/s400/EPO_Apps-tw.JPG" alt="" id="" border="0" /></a><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" class="fullpost" >Fig. 1: Percent Change in Patent Applications for Taiwanese Applicants</span><br /></div><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote>Chinese Applicants:</blockquote></span>China on the other hand, started off with only 162 applications in 2000 (99 applications fewer than Taiwan), but has outdone Taiwan in applications filed with the EPO since 2007. Also, China is also the only country listed above that, despite the economic meltdown, has maintained its year-on-year increases in applications filed, (Fig. 2).<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_2vxT9MKUfviHPQtMkY707zpnA4QhwuVADq0Ig0dCtNF6CPon-FFDpibb1PgmxevoZOvY8YdL9RB4W5em3n1joiME-0cdXkBFeXcVD5ULC0eSJzd5_FdQb5FkbWBXLIZvR2oPwtJp6-To/s1600/EPO_Apps-CN.JPG"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_2vxT9MKUfviHPQtMkY707zpnA4QhwuVADq0Ig0dCtNF6CPon-FFDpibb1PgmxevoZOvY8YdL9RB4W5em3n1joiME-0cdXkBFeXcVD5ULC0eSJzd5_FdQb5FkbWBXLIZvR2oPwtJp6-To/s1600/EPO_Apps-CN" alt="" id="" border="0" /></a><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" class="fullpost" >Fig. 2: Percent Change in Patent Applications for Chinese Applicants</span><br /></div><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;">EPO Patent Grants -2000 to 2009<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhW5saEaX9kn4Gkr7wKNAkzF8wMHBSMzJkIANrxbRC2HFEoNYGyGdjAc4srqP9Ql3-IcEPDFBBIc3TW7BtKbQcqcW79fw6hajZ-VNc7WTClW51TNRDIf4pIT5TaTMJViTdvNR8tZ-5D4N2c/s1600/EPO_Grants.JPG"><img style="width: 534px; height: 198px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhW5saEaX9kn4Gkr7wKNAkzF8wMHBSMzJkIANrxbRC2HFEoNYGyGdjAc4srqP9Ql3-IcEPDFBBIc3TW7BtKbQcqcW79fw6hajZ-VNc7WTClW51TNRDIf4pIT5TaTMJViTdvNR8tZ-5D4N2c/s1600/EPO_Grants.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5488075407336689330" border="0" /></a><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);font-size:85%;" >Fig 3. Patents Granted by the EPO: 2000 – 2009</span><br /></div><br />Figure 3 shows that the number of patents granted by the EPO to Taiwanese applicants has steadily increased from 20 in 2000 to 201 in 2009. Taiwan's growth is second only to China, who has grown from 11 patents granted in 2000 to 351 in 2009.<br /><br />Please note that, tempting as it may be, it is not possible to compare grants with applications as we do not have the statistical data needed to trace the success rate of each application. Generally speaking, the EPO grants approximately 50% of all applications.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">The Big Picture</span></span><br /><br />Having a look at the bigger picture (Fig 4), Taiwan and China are still minorities compared to the major players at the EPO – the United States, Germany, and Japan respectively. Korea files nearly triple that of China, but far less than the BIG 3 (US, Germany, and Japan).<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkjHIDLGlTOJ9TjWdcfgEKDz6YytIqCr9GqqMMM8axwygJj960JIjTxX_UOYJlRoc57nDXPpaB4mcaJoCblHiu6ZKCPAR9dSXFXhTOlt-lUHA1h1mAUo0N_2_S_tNPVoW2O2oXAeBVN9KN/s1600/EPO_GlobalGrants.JPG"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkjHIDLGlTOJ9TjWdcfgEKDz6YytIqCr9GqqMMM8axwygJj960JIjTxX_UOYJlRoc57nDXPpaB4mcaJoCblHiu6ZKCPAR9dSXFXhTOlt-lUHA1h1mAUo0N_2_S_tNPVoW2O2oXAeBVN9KN/s1600/EPO_GlobalGrants.JPG" alt="" id="" border="0" /></a><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" ><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Fig. 4: European Patent Applications Globally</span></span><br /><br /></div>Although the numbers might seem insignificant at first, this growth trend signals a rising awareness among Taiwanese and Chinese companies of the importance and potential value of patent protection in Europe. In the past the numbers were likely low because Taiwanese companies were traditionally focused on the US-market for commercialising their inventions. Now, the shift in roles from passive manufacturers to own-brand companies and exploration of new markets has led them to increase their focus in patents. For China, their delayed entry can likely be attributed to a learning curve in intellectual property rights. In addition, many prospective applicants are put off by the relatively more expensive cost of obtaining a European Patent. Finally, among the many other reasons, a general lack of experience with European Patents may also have contributed to the past apathy.<br /><br />What is causing this growth? A plethora of possibilities– some of which include: globalisation of the world economy; the shift of market resources to Europe due to competition in the US; overall growing awareness of the importance of IP, better quality patents granted by the EPO and so on.<br /><br />Whatever the reasons, reality dictates that both the number of applications filed with the EPO by Taiwanese and Chinese applicants and the number of patents granted to them have made gains over the past 10 years. At NAIP, we believe that Taiwanese and Chinese companies are finally recognising the market opportunities in Europe and more importantly, are taking action and investing money to secure their European intellectual property rights.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">In Search of Effective Filing<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHUECLmiSw0HbBLDXsku5mWL6s2dL777zsq0brZkUju9BHTtvpUl8Kc11drE_XCKE_Cuy0rfwW8XF78iZbOz70vgJSZebffXFABBHgCwkc42y_YCXd3I-lwSJGOlsPBA1a12OuCpE9i1dX/s1600/EPO_app-grant-ratio.JPG"><img style="width: 541px; height: 188px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHUECLmiSw0HbBLDXsku5mWL6s2dL777zsq0brZkUju9BHTtvpUl8Kc11drE_XCKE_Cuy0rfwW8XF78iZbOz70vgJSZebffXFABBHgCwkc42y_YCXd3I-lwSJGOlsPBA1a12OuCpE9i1dX/s1600/EPO_app-grant-ratio" alt="" id="" border="0" /></a></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);font-size:85%;" >Fig. 5: Total European Patent Applications Globally</span><br /><br /></div>A final interesting note from the data is that, as a percentage of the total number of patents applications at the EPO in 2009, Taiwan<br />'s applications represent 0.75% and China's 1.21%, both up from previous years. However, when looking at the actual patents granted, Taiwan's granted patents represent only 0.39% of the total number of patents granted to the countries listed. China's 0.68%.<br /><br />Germany on the other hand represents 18.66% of the total number of applications filed, but managed to achieve 21.9% of the patents granted. The success rate of other countries is also similar or higher than their application rate.<br /><br />Does this mean the quality of applications filed by Chinese and Taiwanese companies are of lower quality or patentability than those filed by Germany, US or even Korea? Not necessarily. The figures may be representative of the learning curve associated with implementing IP strategy in a new market. The applicant's may not be familiar with procedures, drafting differences and so on.<br /><br />That is why it is imperative Taiwanese applicants have access to reliable, quality European patent partner. NAIP provides such a service. Early on we embraced the opportunity to expand our specialized patent filing services to EPO applications. Through ongoing European patent training NAIP has ensured a strong knowledge base among our patent engineers and administrative staff. That allows us to process our clients’ European patent applications effectively, focusing on quality above all. Furthermore, to maintain and guarantee high quality patents, we collaborate with a reputable German Patent Firm for the direct filing and prosecution of all of our European Patent Applications.<br /><br />We believe that through our experience with EPO applications, our thorough consultations with our clients and our attention to detail, our clients can expect a much higher success rate with their EPO applications.<br /></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-83970896716636872902010-06-09T15:51:00.005+08:002010-06-09T16:08:44.657+08:00Taiwan Intellectual Property Office Re-organization Act Amended<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2mWmYyvRAYk-ZajBPisjuLxzibcs-KRuAimnUEdeXB7G2tFDpk-W4GVktCRlCME8bLLpnQ8ox1eIA0OvJzKaMHghZQiRNP-p48vpc6GMk4nUTDYHS73sUJfpSEqjAWzFD9qAu8RggmURF/s1600/tipo.PNG" width="97" height="88" style='float:left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 15px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;' />On 6 June 2010 Taiwan's Executive Yuan passed an amended version of the Taiwan IP Office Re-organization Statute. The amendments are aimed at tackling the patent backlog and delays in patent examination, and will increase the number of patent examiners, but maintain existing head count. This will be accomplished by reducing the number of administrative and secretarial personnel, training and transferring existing personnel, and loosening restrictions on the number of part-time patent examiners. The statute will now go to the Legislative Yuan for approval. <br />The announcement can be found <a href="http://www.ey.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=69885&ctNode=1435">here </a>(Chinese).NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-18694697925334096052010-06-01T16:10:00.003+08:002010-06-09T10:04:48.372+08:00US Continuation-in-Part Applications at the EPOToday, companies with strong, active patent and R&D divisions develop their patent strategies with a global perspective, often filing for patents in both the United States and in Europe.<br /><br />To encourage and improve the inter-office "compatibility" of US and European Patent applications, both the United States Patent Office (USPTO) and European Patent Office (EPO) have introduced programs such as the Patent Prosecution Highway Programme. However, despite these efforts, the two systems remain fundamentally different, and without proper planning and consideration of each office's specific rules and procedures, an applicant risks losing valuable rights in the application process.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">One Invention – Two Systems: An example</span><br />One potential landmine is the US Continuation-in-Part (CIP) Application. Companies often first file a patent in the US, then a corresponding application in Europe claiming priority to the US patent. Later, due to rapid market changes or previously unseen application of the technology, a company sees the opportunity to extend the subject matter in its application and does so though the USPTO's CIP application.<br /><br />Does the applicant have a similar option for the corresponding EPO application? How does this affect the EPO application? First, a quick look at the US CIP application:<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The USPTO Continuation-in-Part Application </span><br />The USPTO provides that an applicant/inventor may add new subject matter to an existing non-provisional application, provided that the new subject matter has not previously been disclosed and that the nonprovisional application is still "alive". In addition, the new application will repeat some or all of the substantial subject matter of the already existing non-provisional application.<br /><br />This new application is known as a Continuation-in-Part Application.<br /><br />An advantage of a CIP is that priority from the earlier non-provisional application may be claimed. Provided that the earlier application has not been patented, abandoned or terminated on the date that the CIP is filed, such CIP will receive the same filing date as the earlier application.<br /><br />(To learn more about CIP applications, please see <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0200_201_08.htm">USPTO MPEP: 201.08 Continuation-in-Part Application [R-3]</a>)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">At the European Patent Office</span> <br />The first thing to know is that the EPO does not provide for Continuation-in-Part Applications. The EPO does have a few options that may seem similar to the CIP, but they cannot be utilized in the same way.<br /><br />The options are limited, but available....<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Divisional Applications:</span><br />Divisional Applications are used to overcome Unity of Invention problems – in other words, to overcome the objections of claiming more than one invention in one application. Thus, when filing a Divisional Application with the EPO, the subject matter disclosed in the Divisional Application must be directly derived from the parent application as filed.<br /><br />The EPO provides for Divisional Applications to be filed "only in respect of subject matter which does not extend beyond the content of an earlier application as filed..." – <a href="http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/html/epc/2000/e/ar76.html">EPC ~ Article 76(1)</a><br /><br />When dealing with a USPTO CIP application, it is indeed NEW subject matter which is added to the earlier nonprovisional application. Unless the new subject matter, which is disclosed in the CIP application, is already disclosed in the earlier EPO application, it will not be possible to apply for a Divisional Application.<br /><br />It is thus advised to disclose and claim as broad as possible when submitting your first application. Therefore, should the examiner object to the application on the grounds of unity of invention, the applicant would be in a position to claim divisional applications from the "parent" application. However, it should be noted that the EPO has introduced a time limit of 2 years from the first communication from the EPO regarding unity of invention for claiming a divisional application.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Amendments:</span><br />Amendments are similar to Divisional Applications in that no new subject matter is allowed to be added to the application. However, if the subject matter disclosed by the CIP application has been disclosed in the earlier EPO application, amendments may be applied for if such amendment will not give rise to any other objections (such as Unity of Invention).<br /><a href="http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/html/epc/2000/e/ar123.html"><br />EPC 123(2)</a> – clearly states that no amendment to an EPO application may add new subject matter which extends beyond the contents of the application as filed.<br /><br />Thus, it might be advantageous for the applicant in the EPO to file his/her application as close as possible to the expiry of the 12month priority period – claiming priority from the earlier US-application. In doing so, the applicant will have ample time to foresee and amend his/her EPO application to overcome disclosure of new subject matter (<a href="http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/html/epc/2000/e/aciii_ii.html">EPC –Article 87 ~ 89</a>).<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Filing a New Application with the EPO:</span><br />The last resort is filing a new EPO Application for the new subject matter disclosed in the CIP application.<br /><br />Note that the new EPO application will be entitled to claim priority from the CIP only if filed within the 12 months priority period granted since filing of the CIP application. Also note that the priority date is the filing date of the CIP, not the filing of the date of the CIP's parent application<br /><br />While this method is not ideal, it does provide a stronger measure of protection than a completely new EPO application.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion</span><br />As this example on USPTO CIP applications and EPO applications clearly shows, inventors and applicants of patents in multiple patent systems must be aware of the various subtle yet significant differences between the requirements of the various patent offices. Contact your patent agent or legal firm and plan ambitiously. You always scale down later.<br /></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-29587817130958724902010-03-31T09:50:00.012+08:002010-03-31T14:14:31.294+08:00Benoit Battistelli – Newly elected President of the European Patent Organization<a><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 200px; height: 301px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX7h3dLCozSkSQGchPukEgxIf-CtLStMlCLrwjYbMhy8vVS1Aa57GpJcVRUAlrnkcne_UmWqCs7Y0PExrEGAop7knSLdSg_16UbL54hRLZncVQKzAcB8whkzJwm7RqiasaB_0vtmcmIah2/s400/batistelli.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5454620860742051762" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">by Charl Goussard, NAIP Legal Research</span><br /><br />On the 1st of March 2010, Benoit Battistelli triumphed as the sixth president of the EPO. Securing the required two third majority votes from the Administrative Council of the EPO was no easy task. It took no less than four sittings of the Council, which is made up of delegates from all the member states of the Organization, to finally elect Mr. Battistelli for a term of five years.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br />As can be expected from such a tough election, the result was met with some criticism, mostly questioning the lengthy process and the choosing of Battistelli.<br /><br />What cannot be denied is Battistelli’s superior diplomatic talent. Shortly after the first Council vote, Battistelli and Danish candidate, Kongstad, released a joint statement in which they proposed for Battistelli’s presidency, with Kongstad as Chairman of the Administrative Council. They even went on to publish a manifesto addressing major topics such as the PCT, EPO Human Resources, issues addressing Cooperation, and proper governance of the EPO.<br /><br />Although the Administrative Council rejected this joint proposal, the progress made was that of cooperation between Battistelli and Kongstad. Soon after the third Council vote, Kongstad announced his withdrawal from the election and Denmark openly supported Battistelli. This was an important diplomatic move that benefited Battistelli in the long run.<br /><br />Since election results in the Council are confidential, it is hard to speculate what exactly made Battistelli defeat Roland Grossenbacher, his Swiss opponent and other front-runner for the EPO presidency. A look at Battistelli’s background might provide the answer.<br /><br />Currently, Battistelli heads the French Patent and Trade Mark Office, a position he has held since May 2004. In addition, Battistelli has been actively involved with the EPO for the past five years.<br /><br />Battistelli believes that his experience will help him address the pressing staffing issues and grievances which exist in the EPO and manage with a firm hand. He has already committed himself to providing a more transparent organization for EPO staff members as well as better explanations of responsibilities and actions. In reaction to Battistelli’s election, the EPO Central Staff Committee said that they are hoping that the newly elected President of the EPO will display the much needed competence to communicate effectively with staff and to value their contributions and rights.<br /><br />Schooled in Law and a graduate of National School of Public Administration (Ecole Nationale d’Administration, ENA) Battistelli is well-experienced in transnational trade issues. He has held various trade related posts with French government departments, notably Deputy Trade Commissioner at the French Embassies in Italy, Turkey and India. More recently, Battistelli was Chief Advisor to the Industry Minister, Mr. Nicole Fontaine, former President of the European Parliament.<br /><br />Battistelli also has experience working with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Thus, facilitating cooperation among the EPO’s 36 member states and among the EPO and other organizations should not be as daunting a challenge.<br /><br />When Battistelli takes up his post on the 1st of June, 2010, this Frenchman will be the second French EPO president and the first EPO president who have previously held the position of Chairman of the Administrative Council.<br /><br />Battistelli, a French national, is fluent in French, English, Italian and has basic German language skills. He is a husband and father of three, and at home in the French municipality of Saint-Germaine-en-Laye he is deputy mayor in charge of culture.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sources:</span><br /><br />1. <a href="http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/141-BREAKING-NEWS-Mr.-Benoit-Battistelli-to-become-next-President-EPO.html">http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/141-BREAKING-NEWS-Mr.-Benoit-Battistelli-to-become-next-President-EPO.html<br /></a><br />2. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Battistelli">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Battistelli</a><br /><br />3. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Battistelli">http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2010/20100301.html</a><br /><br />4. <a href="http://www.eplawpatentblog.com/eplaw/2010/03/epo-beno%C3%AEt-battistelli-france-elected-epo-president.html">http://www.eplawpatentblog.com/eplaw/2010/03/epo-beno%C3%AEt-battistelli-france-elected-epo-president.html</a></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-4867829858770809272010-02-10T18:02:00.006+08:002010-02-10T18:18:14.459+08:00Enter the Tiger!<p align="center"><a><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6JmtfddYBtZOoPMT0lfXeOcO5LtKk27G2F8HivaKaAPXHMzyCg0dQXcbVJBFcJHty3psGIXqRvcTzhDwTDI23dbVCrteu6TKcKXvQDIzrmLHs2xqLx_6RV24pr5Hl0oZ_v9fAXvt804uR/s400/CLNY.gif" /></a></p><br /><br /><a></a>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-43717166589283782762010-02-03T14:00:00.005+08:002010-02-03T18:49:05.338+08:00A Unified Patent For Europe - An Update<a><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI9c9R9PRjAokvUs0FcASgooDC-YmLw4b3k3UPsDi5Q9G2QBw6eMCBw3qQfjRLOgMvi-WfQHf2Zq_0PpgxbimJtIAsv9-05niXMRcjXm5atLNcldOWNv2n0CyK2JXraUdKUR6MH7cevWGf/s400/716930_18501298.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5433966416257948226" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">by Charl Goussard, NAIP Legal Research</span><br /><br />The day when a single patent can provide protection within all European Union (EU) countries is now closer. On the 14th of December 2009, ministers from the EU gathered for a meeting at the EU Competitiveness Council. The Council, tasked with ensuring the enhancement of competitiveness and growth in Europe, had on their agenda the future of the European Patent System (for a refresher on patents in Europe and the current state of the European Patent Office, please refer to our previous article -<a href="http://naipblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/introduction-to-european-patent-system.html"> An Introduction to the European Patent System</a>).<br /><br /><span class="fullpost">The major outcome of the meeting was an agreement of a draft regulation for what is known as the EU patent. In addition, conclusions were reached on the features of a proposed unified patent litigation system (court), arrangements regarding renewal fees and their distribution between national patent offices, and methods for improved collaboration between the national patent offices and the European Patent Office (EPO).<br /><br /><strong>Key Points of the Proposed Regulations</strong><br /><ol><br /><li><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">One Patent, Full and Equal Protection</span><br />The new system will introduce a single patent that provides equal protection throughout the entire EU territory (Link to webpage with countries in EU).<br /><br />Currently applicants must either apply at the various national patent offices in the individual European countries, or opt for a unified application process through the EPO.<br />In the first method, separate applications need to be prosecuted for each individual country in which the applicant wishes to establish patent rights.<br /><br />When opting for a unified application process at the EPO, the prosecution stage up, until grant of the patent is unified. However, the applicant must still delegate his patents to national offices and have them verified in such offices, in order to enforce patent rights in those countries.<br /><br />One system with full and equal protection in the whole Euro-territory upon granting of the patent will make access to European markets easier, more cost effective and less risky. This change will particularly benefit Small and medium-Sized Enterprises (SME's).<br /><br /><p align="center"><img alt="filingroutes" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuoEc2lNP1rEHK8Q6ktQeHfJKK3hxQddR32OOH7hbZ4htpuOfoituZCJqmAT1M4eS4AiqBYBVdnkNHk9SXQn8iNrnkjb_dfgGpfD6vJlZD3BA-pJ7y6o7B9K-Mmabp5CuBtafQ6uujB95A/s800/filingroutes.gif" /></p><br /><br /></li><li><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">A Single Examination and Granting Authority: The EPO</span><br />The EPO is to play a central role in granting the EU patent–sole responsibility for examining and granting EU patents.<br /><br />The EPO already has the infrastructure and expertise to deal with European Applications. To ensure the most effective implementation of the new patent system, it is vital that the EPO be entrusted with the administrative procedures and that their mandate extended to the post-grant phase of, for instance, managing renewal fees and the patent registry.<br /><br /><br /></li><li><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">A New Role and Revenue Stream for National Patent Offices<br /></span>All central intellectual property offices will have an essential role under the new system–giving support and advice to applicants. In turn, they will be compensated through the distribution of annual renewal fees.<br /><br />This provision ensures that local knowledge and good relationships with the national patent offices are not lost. Furthermore, applicants may make use of this extra service to obtain the best advice for their respective applications.<br /><br /><br /></li><li><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Multiple Filing Offices</span><br />Applicants will still have a choice to file their applications at the national offices, if more convenient, or directly at the EPO.<br /><br /><br /></li><li><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Unified Application Fees</span><br />To ensure fairness throughout the European Union, all filing offices will charge the same fee for filing a European patent.<br /><br /><br /></li><li><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The European Patent Convention As the Principal Legal Structure<br /></span>In order to avoid unnecessary confusion and delay, the EPC will remain as the principle legal structure governing the pre-grant process. The EPC received a major revision in 2000 (implemented in 2007) which now makes it a trusted system.<br /><br /><br /></li><li><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Individual National Patents Remain an Option</span><br />The proposed regulation will not replace national laws relating to patents nor will it remove the applicant's right to apply for national patents.<br /><br />If applicants wish to only apply for a selected country or countries, they will be allowed to do so. Applicants will thus, with the new system, have an additional option, and not be limited to a unitary European patent.<br /><br /><br /></li><li><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">One Patent Court for the EU</span><br />Having one unified patent litigation system for the whole territory will be a major advantage. The new system will cut litigation cost and ensure quick and effective enforcement of the patent rights throughout the whole Euro-territory. </li></ol><br /><br /><strong>The Road Ahead</strong><br /><br />Next, the EU Parliament will deliberate the proposal. Compatibility of the draft regulation and current EU laws, language arrangements for the new EU patent system, and the collaboration between national patent offices and the EU patent office will probably be some of the key issues to be debated.<br /><br />Taking into account that the revised European Patent Convention (EPC 2000 edition) took seven year to come into effect, one should not be panicking about sudden changes. At least there is hope on the horizon....<br /></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-64307586291515284652009-12-29T15:27:00.016+08:002009-12-30T14:09:07.536+08:00Who's Who at the EPO?<div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5420562441368122690" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; width: 400px; height: 269px; text-align: center;" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBrJM1ztV7KPh4skdj13rDCPPy6g7BVX7nHZ1Kp3IJSZUaT0nngi4HkxojXFTVwV69tQb9it-koG1-tbsN6I6z6xqfBnS5IVTaqsZGKXzp3BKOjsnkG2QqYKzsxKo1GAAD4g2Pr4TY0m9p/s400/word-sell-connected-business-people-abstract.JPG" border="0" /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">by Charl Goussard, NAIP Legal Research</span><br /><br />Since our previous article <a href="http://naipblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-does-european-patent-office-epo.html">What does the European Patent Office (EPO) look like?</a> - we've spend some time to find out who's who at this office.<br /><br />You might be familiar with the name "Alison Brimelow" (current president of the EPO), and you might have heard that the Office is preparing for their next president after Alison steps down at the end of June 2010.<br /><br />Below we'll give a round-up of the main players who've been tasked with keeping the EPO on track.<br /><span class="fullpost"> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />Leading the pack...<br /><br /></span></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="fullpost"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; width: 201px; height: 296px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwlVjaUvqY1Y001CENerOWsPi8HXNQHZTE1vpdEh-CpmJcMgQG1VgKY7X7_ORyf4sOIPm3UNq4eJDq4tpybX3yXVet64p9T4pfEK-wA92ydySrjckvGVd46UqYDwTGvBMOvL62EJZk-8HU/s400/A_Brimelow_small.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5420621791864358802" border="0" /></span></span><span class="fullpost"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;">Alison Brimelow<br />President of the European Patent Office</span></span><br /><br /></div><span class="fullpost">Alison Brimelow is a British civil servant and former Chief Executive and Comptroller General of the UK Patent Office. She is the fifth and current President of the European Patent Office.<br /><br />Her term of office as president of the EPO began on 1 July 2007. In May 2009, she informed the EPO staff that she will not seek an extension of her contract which ends on 30 June 2010.<br /><br />In 2005, Alison was appointed Commander of the British Empire for her contribution to Intellectual Property Law.<br /><br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="fullpost"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; width: 264px; height: 213px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiI3Gpvqb7nfzMuUIfaapJVjeYTzbt57izatpEHhdLA-ysRstz04mlk1S1OmgjInWEGdLLfOoy2CFHaXkJSMK_l0_oz6oh2argGREEfUzbS1S-akAvDjZogyr5RmahbTdXW7REHw9-Tkuu7/s400/benoit_battistelli.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5420622339057311730" border="0" /></span><span class="fullpost"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Benoit Batistelli<br />Chairman of the Administrative Council</span></span><br /><br /></div><span class="fullpost">Benoit Batistelli is a French civil servant and current head of the French National Intellectual Property Institute. He has held this post since 12 May 2004.<br /><br />He was elected to the post of Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Council of the EPO on 5 December 2006 for a three-year term. Then, later the Administrative Council appointed him as its Chairman for a three-year term, from 5 March 2009 until March 2012.<br /><br />In 2008, Benoit was named as one of the candidates to succeed Kamil Idris to head the World Intellectual Property Organization. He is now also candidate for the position of President of the EPO after Alison steps down.<br /><br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="fullpost"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; width: 225px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiopjiWrIwR_xR5Dbt60Q1QsVbMbyNKRsg-fmVyI4EulufdBzigPDOyMioyLjDQm25M3ONuBOo5tFyT8xa3pmVPhIk1D_PzlP3S1cLuGnpirQbMuQd0SgY2mr43cwYX532faOG-bMYelL7C/s400/kongstadt-dkpto-1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5420622735939056434" border="0" /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 153);">Jesper Kongstad<br />Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Counci</span></span><br /><br /></div><span class="fullpost">Jesper Kongstad is Director General and CEO of the Danish Patent and Trademark Office and a member of the Executive Committee of the Danish Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs. He is also head of the Danish delegation and Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organization. Jesper was also a candidate for the position of President of the EPO. In December 2009, however, he withdrew his candidacy.<br /><br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="fullpost"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; width: 120px; height: 180px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3uneBKCKrUI6GN68UNw2JzfiSeG0-5OhPHkrU28pRRSoJUgsEClfl2FeR0YFTl9PIGXwHAl5Pjmo-_OcGyUQw6WeqKfWq5ICdZ6bmSAF47Jw8fSw1bnhtkZvrpXRC1AdoW4c1Bgf3Jxl0/s400/r._grossenbacher.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5420623068045306914" border="0" /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Roland Grossenbacher<br />Honorary Chairman of the Administrative Council</span></span><br /><br /></div><span class="fullpost">Roland Grossenbacher is a Swiss attorney at law who served as chairman of the Administrative Council from 5 March 5 to 4 March 2009. He was appointed at this post for a first three-year term on 5 March 2000. He was then reelected in 2002 for a second term, beginning on 5 March 2003. In December 2005, he was again re-elected as Chairman of the Council from a third term from 5 March 2006 to 4 March 2009. After he stepped down in March 2009, he was made "Honorary Chairman" of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organization.<br /><br />He is currently the Director of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property.<br /><br />Roland, together with Benoit Batistelli and Susanne Sivborg (President, Swedish Patent Office), is one of the candidates for the position of President of the EPO after Alison steps down.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">EPO Management Team</span><br /><br />Ensuring the day-to-day management, the examination of patent applications, the grant of European patents and various other activities, such as the provision of patent information and training services, is a highly competent and efficient management team headed by Alison Brimelow (the President is elected and appointed by the Administrative council).<br /><br />Alison's management team comprises Vice Presidents and three other directors:<br /><br />Thomas Hammer, Vice-President Directorate - General Operations<br />Peter Vermeij, Vice-President Directorate - General Operational Support<br />Peter Messerli, Vice-President Directorate - General Appeals<br />Brian McGinley, Vice-President Directorate - General Administration<br />Wim van der Eijk, Vice-President a.i. Directorate-General Legal/International Affairs<br />Ciarán McGinley, Head of the Controlling Office<br />Wolfram Förster, Principal Director Business Services<br />Oswald Schröder, Principal Director Communication and Change Support Team, Spokesman<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Last but not the least...<br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">The Employees of the EPO</span><br />Running an organization the size and complexity of the EPO requires dedicated staff. The EPO is definitely such a place! Being the second largest European Organization, it employs roughly 6500 staff from over 30 different countries.<br /></span></div>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-21454206705071233432009-12-24T09:49:00.003+08:002009-12-24T09:59:14.349+08:00Happy Holidays from NAIP!<embed src="http://www.naipo.com/ecard/2009MCHNY/images/mx-E.swf" quality="high" allowscriptaccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" align="middle" height="400" width="550"></embed>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-53685728502775037102009-12-01T17:59:00.010+08:002009-12-02T15:36:20.803+08:00What does the European Patent Office (EPO) look like?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJbcA6v8nfRz1GKlkwXkhnMZZHommwkF0XAkaxhsmyRlNJKfJCvA77gNaXeVBOSzfFdXdM3JshsXjVUYxXcGXf0MEaUmi6WmloD8X8xrhaPMeTGtqIIOltqaqvIKzdGSU5WUkkgYEmoHoq/s1600-h/1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 306px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJbcA6v8nfRz1GKlkwXkhnMZZHommwkF0XAkaxhsmyRlNJKfJCvA77gNaXeVBOSzfFdXdM3JshsXjVUYxXcGXf0MEaUmi6WmloD8X8xrhaPMeTGtqIIOltqaqvIKzdGSU5WUkkgYEmoHoq/s320/1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5410536378049812546" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: left; color: rgb(192, 192, 192);">By Charl Goussard, NAIP Legal Research</div><br /><br />You've probably heard of the EPO and maybe you've even filed a patent through the Office, but have you ever wondered how this organization operates?<br /><br />In an attempt to get a better understanding of the EPO, we've done some investigation and what follows is our understanding and a summary of the most prominent offices within the EPO.<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3WjdML97w3d1y_HmX3dPhbiJn7BadJsmmimphdWBMgAF3GTu1WoAyG0xmc_w-mhaFLmpCRV-O0EMCIbxZDvFUvD9FjYs7v0fCFp-QfsE8msNcm7Tf3-bJQ4K16AJKOAmSjAHUL89NFTiR/s1600-h/2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 252px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3WjdML97w3d1y_HmX3dPhbiJn7BadJsmmimphdWBMgAF3GTu1WoAyG0xmc_w-mhaFLmpCRV-O0EMCIbxZDvFUvD9FjYs7v0fCFp-QfsE8msNcm7Tf3-bJQ4K16AJKOAmSjAHUL89NFTiR/s400/2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5410537554162379362" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Administrative Council: </span><br /><br />The European Patent Organisation is an intergovernmental organisation that was set up on 7 October 1977 on the basis of the European Patent Convention (EPC) signed in Munich in 1973.<br /><br />Currently the EPO consists of <a href="http://www.epo.org/about-us/epo/member-states.html">36 contracting</a> states. Each of these contracting states is entitled to appoint one representative and one alternate representative to the Administrative Council of the EPO.<br /><br />The Administrative Council's powers include the right to amend the time limitations related to the examination process of patent applications, the right to amend the implementing regulations of the European Patent Convention, to adopt or amend financial regulations and any employment regulations for permanent employees, and to adopt or amend rules relating to fees. Furthermore it has the competency to authorise the EPO President to negotiate and conclude agreements on behalf of the EPO.<br /><br />The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Council are elected by the members from among the representatives of the Administrative Council and they are elected for a non-renewable period of three years. Leading the Administrative Council currently is the Chairman (<span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Benoit Batistelli</span>), Deputy Chairman (<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;">Jesper Kongstad</span>) and Honorary Chairman (<span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Roland Grossenbacher</span>).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">European Patent Office Management Team </span><br /><br />Ensuring the day-to-day management, the examination of patent applications, the grant of European patents and various other activities, such as the provision of patent information and training services, is a highly competent and efficient management team headed by the EPO President, <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Alison Brimelow</span>. Alison’s management team comprises five Vice Presidents and three other directors.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Boards of Appeal</span><br /><br />Independent from the Office in their decisions and bound only by the European Patent Convention is the boards of appeal.<br /><br />There are currently 26 technical boards of appeal, plus the Legal Board of Appeal, the Enlarged Board of Appeal and the Disciplinary Board of Appeal. The members and chairmen are appointed for a term of five years.<br /><br />The boards of appeal currently receive about 2 000 new cases per year and settle about 1 600 cases. The public is informed about the decisions of the boards via the European Patent Register and the Official Journal of the EPO.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Employees of the EPO</span><br /><br />Running an organisation the size and complexity of the EPO requires dedicated staff. The EPO is definitely such a place! Being the second largest European Organisation it employs roughly 6500 staff from over 30 different countries.<br /><br />The EPO is headquartered in Munich, but also has a branch in The Hague, offices in Berlin and Vienna, and a liaison office in Brussels.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Now that we have a slightly better understanding of the structure of the EPO, we plan to tell you “Who’s who" in our next issue. </span><br /><br /></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-40556673118649306262009-10-21T10:53:00.001+08:002009-10-21T14:18:54.553+08:00Digging for Diamonds at the EPO<div style="text-align: center; color: rgb(192, 192, 192);">Money-saving patenting tips brought to you by the Patent Penny Pincher</div><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0iP8kNhhHQI0a4xMFgu3GRu8hBtIB9Vt_lCtTGGS0IoQKuH594GQ_UX-l9YUxzImt0CIUrUK4Qm5dZq5IKMm3Yl26Wrr7iMFKS-9VrnOafL2AcGU6k4wmQQNisTMPlnlmXG3IYWtvYBr2/s1600-h/151473996_f8b995fbc8.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0iP8kNhhHQI0a4xMFgu3GRu8hBtIB9Vt_lCtTGGS0IoQKuH594GQ_UX-l9YUxzImt0CIUrUK4Qm5dZq5IKMm3Yl26Wrr7iMFKS-9VrnOafL2AcGU6k4wmQQNisTMPlnlmXG3IYWtvYBr2/s400/151473996_f8b995fbc8.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5394512349093092834" border="0" /></a><br />It's time to stake your claim in the field of IP Valuations.<br /><br />Up for grabs is IPscore, a FREE IP Valuation software...<br /><br />Yes, you heard it, for FREE!<br /><br />The generous host is none other than the European Patent Office (EPO).<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Get More from your patents with IPscore</span><br /><br />IPscore is the EPO's patent evaluation software, acquired from the Danish Patent Office who developed the tool in collaboration with industry.<br /><br />IPscore helps users generate both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the patent(s) or technology they wish to analyse. In particular, IPscore creates a financial forecast by using tried and tested assessment factors (in total 40 factors)<br /><br />Furthermore, after feeding the IPscore software with the relevant information needed for the IP evaluation, the software also provides a number reports which reveal different dimensions of the qualitative evaluation and the financial forecast. These reports include a Radar profile, a Strategic profile, Net present value, and four graphic Charts which visually assist interpretation of the evaluations.<br /><br />The various reports, charts, and financial values will provide the interested parties with an overall view of the assessment factors and is useful for dialogue and for interpreting how the different categories of assessment affect the value of the patent.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Why Should I Use IPscore?</span><br /><br />By using IPscore, applicants, technology transfer institutes, banks and venture capitalists, to name but a few, will be able to attach a value to the intellectual property they're dealing with—whether it be in the form of licensing agreements, financing arrangements, mergers and takeovers, or even enforced valuations.<br /><br />For example, if you're an inventor or business with its own patents, you can use IPscore to evaluate your individual patents, patented technologies, R&D projects (even if no patent exists yet), or any other ideas (know-how) or proposals.<br /><br />If you're business owner or CEO, IPscore can help you align your company’s patent strategy and make the best use of your patents as a business tool.<br /><br />In general, IPscore is a handy tool for evaluating your patents & technology by giving you a number to work with, allowing for strategic IP dialogue within your company, as well as providing a guide for spotting prospective growth and chances to save costs.<br /><br />In addition, once you have a value linked to your technology, it will be easier for you to negotiate license agreements, make investment decisions, or obtain public funding.<br /><br />And of course, it's FREE!<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Learn More or Get Started Now</span><br /><br />IPscore is a Microsoft Access-based tool, which can be effortlessly downloaded from the EPO website.<br /><br />In addition, the EPO supplies training in the form of an introductory 30 minute <a href="http://www.epo.org/patents/learning/e-learning/business-commerce/ipscore.html">IPscore presentation</a> as well as a two day <a href="http://www.epo.org/patents/patent-information/business/valuation/ipscore.html">Patent Evaluation Training Course</a> (hurry, the next one starts on the 16th of November 2009, Vienna)<br /><br />Don't be red-faced next time you meet with your banker, licensee, accountant or investors.<br />Join the diamond rush and get your own patent evaluation now with the immaculate IPscore.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.epo.org/patents/patent-information/business/valuation/ipscore.html">EPO IPscore Mini-site</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.epo.org/patents/learning/e-learning/business-commerce/ipscore.html">Video Introduction to IPscore</a><br /><a href="http://forums.epo.org/ipscore">IPscore Forum</a><br /><a href="http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/A2A008822722C942C125755A003774C1/$File/IPscore_manual_en.pdf">IPscore Manual</a><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Photo by </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/beglen/" title="Link to David Boyle's photostream" rel="dc:creator cc:attributionURL"><b property="foaf:name">David Boyle</b></a></span></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-92187595191811484512009-10-01T10:47:00.002+08:002009-10-01T10:59:05.280+08:00Happy Hour at the UK IPO<div style="text-align: center; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Money-saving patenting tips brought to you by the Patent Penny Pincher<br /><br /></div><a><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; width: 400px; height: 267px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSeOuCuRcMxPSqSlRTYcvUUrYOPfyp2OIdkNxgZ5sy3vLuhimiRaZXAyZegr7rwzgTGew7HdznoKRway3-Tybj47MaH82h_nm1lcdH7ISSgZcxp0jcpwgBmspyQuhlHdS0j7SCuncgK3DA/s400/2326310839_b2ca7ba06f_b.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5387173329181468914" border="0" /></a><div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">(Every Mon. ~ Fri. between 9am and 5 pm!) </div><br />Good news bargain hunters! The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) has a special offer on patent opinions. For only £200 you can now obtain a valid opinion on the validity of infringement status of any UK patent. That's right, only £200!<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Not only will this service save you money, it will save you time and give you some peace of mind....<br /><br />Already thinking that this is too good to be true? That there MUST be a catch?!!<br /><br />Well, to be honest, the Patent Penny Pincher thought so too, but in fact, the UK IPO is offering this service to help reduce costs related to patent infringement disputes, which in turn will hopefully lead to less wasted resources.<br /><br />Now let have a closer look at what’s at offer:<br /><br /><blockquote>1) UK IPO Opinion: </blockquote>Since 2005 the UK IPO has been offering opinions in an attempt to resolve patent disputes. The opinion consists of a balanced and impartial assessment of the essential issue of an anticipated or real dispute.<br /><br /><blockquote>2) Cost? </blockquote>The Cost for an opinion – payable to the UK IPO is £200 (roughly NT$ 10 000).<br />Not a bad price at all, considering that some Patent Attorneys' hourly rate is more than that!<br /><br /><blockquote>3) Timing?</blockquote>From the date of submitting your request for an opinion until receiving the opinion takes no more than 3 months.<br /><br /><blockquote>4) Target Customers </blockquote>1. If you are a patent owner or an exclusive licensee facing a patent dispute, you'd like to have some opinion on the validity of infringement status of your or even your opponent's patent. In some cases the opinion provided by the UK IPO might help to resolve the dispute, saving a lot of time, money and discomfort. On the other hand, if the dispute eventually ends up in court, you would have had time to consider your options based on reliable opinions.<br /><br />2. If you're a free-thinking liberal with money to spare, you might want to do some opinion digging in the patent office archives and sell your "knowledge" to the patent werewolves eager to sue! (not a bad past-time for a vindictive soul)<br /><br /><blockquote>5) Important Things to Know</blockquote>1. Since the launch of this service, the IPO has provided 100 opinions!<br />2. Applications & results are <span style="font-weight: bold;">released to the public</span> <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-dispute/p-opinion/p-opinion-advert.htm">here</a>, so if you'd rather keep things quiet, the Patent Penny Pincher suggests you avoid this service.<br /><br /><blockquote>6) Who are the trend setters? </blockquote>During the past four years, companies big and small have made use of the UK IPO's opinion service, but some of the "big" names include Marks & Spencer PLC and Unilever PLC. It goes without saying that these are professional opinions, provided by knowledgeable UK IPO practitioners who are as (and if not more) capable as most very expensive patent attorneys.<br /><br />200£ for a bit of peace of mind and a lot of knowledge, spend wisely!<br />As they say: An ounce of common sense is worth a pound of theory...<br /><br />-The Patent Penny (& Pound) Pincher.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-dispute/p-opinion.htm">UK IPO Opinions Service Page</a><br /><br /><br /><br /></span><span class="fullpost"><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Photo by </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/16038409@N02/">AGok</a></span></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5003168834296820361.post-4440425073906497552009-08-31T14:00:00.002+08:002009-08-31T14:05:14.864+08:00A Brief Overview of IC Design Protection<a><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; width: 400px; height: 266px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe_MwiT5aOjkMVStneFJSLsMLSN4ed8UJw7j6uSEFHnBE6KIA1MqNyMj5VNquQlNO6qW4y1v-MudaG-u29CIL76eVpXeRgztl7UqZHzHwVelGQtpJaE4Z37JBR85ZOLOPbB_3D-IKfgene/s400/icdesign.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5374949340137734978" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">By Charl Goussard, NAIP Legal Research</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What is Integrated Circuit Design?</span><br /><br />Simply put, integrated circuit design has to do with the meticulous logic and techniques applied to the design of integrated circuits.<br /><br />Integrated circuits (IC) are "miniature electronic components built into an electrical network on a monolithic semiconductor substrate by photolithography", which in more layman's terms, essentially means they are dozens or even billions of tiny inter-connecting electrical paths meticulously arranged onto a single piece of material, such as silicon.<br /><br />In the past few decades the development of IC has arguably been the main driving force behind a majority of advances in technology. We find them in everyday goods, controlling the spin cycles of washing machines, keeping time in digital watches, and crunching whatever processes we are running on computers.<span class="fullpost"><br /><br />As markets drive toward smaller, faster, better electronics products, new IC chips must be produced to meet these demands. Due to the nature of IC, the majority of progress arises from the new, more effective and efficient designs and arrangements of the circuits. As a result, IC design is one of the most important fields in modern electronics.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Need for Legal Protection:</span><br /><br />Designing an IC chip is not a simple feat. As chips become even smaller, issues such as hot spots, leakage etc., make an effective, power-efficient designs extremely difficult to achieve. Successful designs usually result from the enormous effort of highly qualified experts coupled with huge financial investments.<br /><br />However, copying each layer of an integrated circuit and preparing "pirated" integrated circuits can be done with relatively little effort.<br /><br />Taking into account the enormous effort and cost to develop an IC design, the wide industrial applicability, the constant demand for improvement, and the ease at which such designs can be copied, it seems logical that some form of statutory protection should be afforded for the designers or owners of these designs.<br /><br />But where do we find these rights?<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Patent or Copyright?</span><br /><br />Provided that an IC Design displays satisfactory inventiveness and meets the required standard of uniqueness, patent protection will always be an option for the protection of the intellectual property rights embodied in an IC Design.<br /><br />However, the lion's share of IC Designs is considered obvious under the most patent systems given that they typically lack any improvement (inventive step) over their predecessors (prior art).<br /><br />Here some might argue that IC Designs are sufficiently protected by Copyright laws, since Copyright usually applies to a wide range of creative, intellectual, scientific, or artistic forms (and what is IC Design but a form of technical art?). The United States Constitution expresses the intent of copyright as:<br /><blockquote>To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 United States Constitution). </blockquote>Unfortunately, neither patents nor copyrights were deemed suitable, and in 1984 the United States passed the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act. Although codified under the same title as Copyrights, the Act is clearly intended to provide IC Designs with sui generis ("of its own kind") rights. It has some aspects of copyright law, some aspects of patent law, and in some ways it is completely different from either.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Legal Protection: Treaties, Laws and Regulations</span><br /><br />The United States led the way in recognising the need for a special act to adequately protect IC Designs Rights. The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act enacted 17 U.S.C. §§ 901-914, which provides statutory protection for IC Design Rights in the US. The following extract from the Senate Report on the bill (S.Rep. No. 425, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. (1984) is self-explanatory:<br /><blockquote>In the semiconductor industry, innovation is indispensable; research breakthroughs are essential to the life and health of the industry. But research and innovation in the design of semiconductor chips are threatened by the inadequacies of existing legal protection against piracy and unauthorized copying. This problem, which is so critical to this essential sector of the American economy, is addressed by the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984. ...[The bill] would prohibit "chip piracy"--the unauthorized copying and distribution of semiconductor chip products copied from the original creators of such works. </blockquote>According to the Act, IC Design rights exist when they are created, just like Copyrights, but unlike patents (which can only confer rights after application, examination and issuance). However, the exclusive rights afforded to the owners of IC Designs are more restricted than those afforded to both copyright and patent holders. Modification (derivative works), for example, is not an exclusive right for owners of IC Designs. Furthermore, the exclusive right granted to a patentee to "use" an invention, cannot be used to exclude an independently produced identical IC Design. In addition, reproduction for reverse engineering of an IC Design is specifically permitted by most laws.<br /><br />Japan (1985) and the European Community (EC) countries (1987) soon followed and endorsed their own, similar statutes/directives recognizing and protecting IC Designs (also referred to as the "topography of semiconductor chips")<br /><br />In 1989, a Diplomatic Conference was held in Washington, D.C., at which the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (IPIC Treaty) was adopted internationally. This treaty has been partially incorporated into the TRIPS agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">IC Design Protection in Major Countries</span><br /><br />The United States, as mentioned above, were the first to protect IC-Design rights through the United States Code (17U.S.C. § 901(a) (2)). Dubbed "mask works", the Code defines IC Designs/Mask Works as:<br /><blockquote>a series of related images, however fixed or encoded, having or representing the predetermined, three-dimensional pattern of metallic, insulating, or semiconductor material present or removed from the layers of a semiconductor chip product, and in which the relation of the images to one another is such that each image has the pattern of the surface of one form of the semiconductor chip product.</blockquote>The top IC markets all have passed their own Acts or Regulations that include variations of this definition. Below is a comparison of the IC Design Protection extended by the major IP offices in the world, as well as that afforded by the Taiwan IP office (TIPO).<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.naipo.com.tw/en/images/IC_Chart.pdf"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 560px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_G2AnfdeUgyk15cdpK98yktl_v4x-CXWPlMk892zBCcrxC9EaRLFIER-kS3SCcFPyjuMn4C_4J1NLMsV6g4CR2exrReAMRqH_-FeUUYGYr_Mt_QEjl6gQikVQqq2KReLoSYWhNIEezBRJ/s720/ICDesign_Chart.jpg" alt="right click and choose Save As to download a pdf of this chart" id="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">(Right click and choose "Save As" to download a pdf of this chart)</span></span></div><br /><br />Similar protection can also be found in The United Kingdom (Part III of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act – 1988, as modified by The Design Right (Semiconductor Topographies) Regulations - 1989), Australia (Circuits Layouts Act of 1989), Canada (Integrated Circuit Topography Act of 1990), Hong Kong (Lay-out Design (Topography) of Integrated Circuits Ordinance of 1994), and India (Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design Act of 2000). In Taiwan, IC Design Rights are protected by the Integrated Circuit Layout Protection Act of 1995.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion</span><br /><br />Having had a brief overview of IC Design rights, it should now be clear that these highly lucrative rights are recognized and protected internationally as sui generis rights, under the umbrella of Intellectual Property Rights. With an exclusive time-frame of 10 years from its registration or start of commercial exploitation, these rights should be an impetus to develop, improve and invest in the economics of electronics – securing a brighter, lighter and faster future!<br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Photo by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/james4765/" title="Link to james4765's photostream" rel="dc:creator cc:attributionURL"><b property="foaf:name">james4765</b></a></span></span>NAIP Corporationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10831818279250287825noreply@blogger.com12