JURISDICTION REPORT: TAIWAN
TAIWAN-US PPH PILOT LAUNCHED
Candy Chen and Crystal Chen Tsai Lee & Chen
Te Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot programme between the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) and the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) has commenced, as of September 1, 2011. Te trial period will last for one year before evaluation for full implementation commences. For applicants whose claims have been determined to be allowable in the office of first filing, generally the USPTO, they can undergo an accelerated examination under the PPH in the office of second filing, which in this case is TIPO. It is hoped that the launch of the PPH will alleviate the stress on TIPO’s current 45-month long pendency, especially for invention patent applications.
Te requirements for requesting accelerated examination at TIPO under the PPH pilot programmes are as follows:
• Te Taiwan application has validly claimed priority to its US counterpart, or to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application with US designation, where the US counterpart or PCT application is the first- filed counterpart without further priority claim.
• One or more claims from the corresponding US application have been determined patentable or issued by the USPTO. Should the US examiner in the Notice of Allowability, Non-Final Rejection, Office Action Summary of Final Rejection or that of ex parte Quayle Office Action expressly indicate the claim allowance, such indication can prove the allowability of claims before TIPO.
• All claims, either originally filed or amended, must sufficiently correspond to the allowable claims under the USPTO or of a narrower scope.
• Te Taiwan application has received notification of substantive examination, but not the first office action from TIPO before requesting PPH examination.
For a Taiwan application that has not been made public at the time of requesting PPH examination, an early publication must be requested.
In the meantime, the existing Accelerated Examination Programme (AEP) for invention applications, which was initiated unilaterally by TIPO in 2009, will continue to be in effect. Te AEP is maintained because it can be regarded as a supplementary accelerated examination programme to the PPH pilot. Furthermore, the AEP applies to all foreign, but not limited to US, counterparts of Taiwan applications. Applications eligible to request for AEP include the following:
• Any application has validly claimed priority to its foreign counterpart, and the foreign counterpart has been granted under substantive examination by a foreign patent office.
86
• Te European Patent Office, Japan Patent Office or USPTO has issued an office action during substantive examination, but is yet to allow the application’s foreign counterpart. A request for AEP under this condition will need to include a copy of the office action in a submission and that of the search report from any of these patent offices.
• When the applicant is preparing to, or has, put the claimed invention into practice, the applicant may apply for AEP on the grounds that the invention application is essential to commercial exploitation.
Where the AEP differs from the PPH pilot programme is that the PPH request can be accepted only when the US counterpart is the basis for priority claim and has been, or is soon to be, granted by the USPTO, and that no office action has been issued by TIPO, and a showing of any allowable claim from the US counterpart; while the AEP does not have such restrictions of venue of first application, pending status of Taiwan application or allowable status of the foreign counterpart.
Based on TIPO’s statistics, on average the official opinion can be issued within 74.6 days under the AEP accelerated examination, compared to the current 45-month pendency. It is expected that under the PPH pilot programme, the application will enjoy an even shorter pendency than under the AEP.
Candy K.Y. Chen is a patent attorney and partner at Tsai Lee & Chen. She can be contacted at:
ckchen@tsailee.com.tw
Crystal J. Chen is an attorney at law and partner at Tsai Lee & Chen. She can be contacted at:
cjchen@tsailee.com.tw
World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2011
www.worldipreview.com
“IT IS EXPECTED THAT UNDER THE PPH PILOT PROGRAMME, THE APPLICATION WILL ENJOY AN EVEN SHORTER PENDENCY THAN UNDER THE AEP.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100