CHOOSING BETWEEN RUSSIA AND EURASIA JURISDICTION REPORT: RUSSIA
Teemu Lang Papula Nevinpat
Partly with a focus on becoming a World Trade Organization (WTO) member, Russia has been actively reforming its patent laws and regulations during the past decade. With WTO membership, Russia is now being seen as a state with a genuine drive towards establishing an efficient and reliable system for applying and enforcing patent rights.
While the national laws and regulations have been developed and clarified in Russia, it should be noted that there has been another, regional system working in parallel with the Russian national system since 1995 to apply for patents in Russia. Tis regional system is called the Eurasian Patent Convention (EAPC). Both systems, the RU national and the EA regional, have been strongly influenced by patent
“LOOKING AT THE COST OF PROSECUTION IN RUSSIA, IT WOULD BE WISE TO CHOOSE THE RU OFFICE FOR SHORTER APPLICATIONS AND THE EA OFFICE FOR LONGER, MORE COMPLICATED APPLICATIONS.”
laws and regulations in the
European territory. However, although both systems have been westernised, there exist several differences which should be taken into account when choosing between the two.
Te obvious difference is that the EA-system covers eight countries: Turkmenistan, Belarus, Tajikistan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyz Republic and Armenia. Tis coverage comes with a price tag as the official fees in the Eurasian Patent Office (EAPO) are significantly higher than in the Russian national office; especially since the Russian national office lowered its fees in 2012 in anticipation of WTO membership, which no longer allowed the office to maintain different fees for foreign and domestic applicants. As an example, the filing fee in the RU office is about $60 while the filing fee in the EA office is about $630 for Patent Cooperation Treaty nationalisations. Similar relative differences in official fees apply to other prosecutions as well.
Another important difference between the two offices is in the expertise of the examiners. Te EA office has a tradition of serving foreign applicants in the pharmaceutical industry, and therefore its expertise in this field is potentially at a higher level than exists in the RU office. On the other hand the RU office, being a much bigger organisation with some 2,500 employees, has accumulated more versatile expertise across a wider range of technological fields.
In Russia, possibly for historical reasons, examiners are given a lot of power over the application under examination. Tis is also supported by the national patent regulations which may be considered as less definitive than their Eurasian counterparts, which have adopted the very clear formulation from the European Patent Convention. Tis difference has led to the fact that the EA office is commonly more applicant-friendly than the RU office where the examiners are very strict eg, in formal matters and in their requirements concerning sufficient support for and clarity of the claims. On average, prosecution through the RU national office requires about one more round of office actions than prosecution through the EA office.
www.worldipreview.com
Tese differences together with the application itself determine which system would be the more advantageous one for a specific application. Complicated and long applications from the pharmaceutical field oſten run into two or more office actions before the examiner comments on the novelty and inventiveness of the claims. Tis naturally requires more work from the applicant or his representative to successfully prosecute the application. For the same reasons the time from requesting examination to a granting decision is about one year more through the national RU office than through the EA office.
Te shorter and simpler the application is, the less of the overall prosecution cost comes from the work done by the applicant or his representative. Correspondingly, for shorter and simpler applications a relatively bigger proportion of the overall prosecution cost comes from the official fees in both the RU office and the EA office. Following this logic, which has also proved to be true in practice, looking at the mere cost of prosecution in Russia it would be wise to choose the RU office for shorter applications and the EA office for longer and more complicated applications. Tis is partly why the pharmaceutical industry and other chemistry-involved fields oſten prefer the regional EA route.
Naturally, financial aspects are not the only ones determining which of the two offices to choose. One should also take into account the wider geographical coverage of the EA patent as well as the expertise of the examiners in a specific field of technology.
Teemu Lang is a director and patent attorney at Papula Nevinpat. He can be contacted at:
teemu.lang@
papula-nevinpat.com
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013 181
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 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196