Sometimes clients who have prepared their own applications do not diary the correct deadline in which to file an international application.
While there is an international right to restoration of priority providing two months grace (in specific circumstances) a number of countries have filed notices of incompatibility including:
While there is an international right to restoration of priority providing two months grace (in specific circumstances) a number of countries have filed notices of incompatibility including:
Canadian Intellectual Property Office State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (Colombia) Cuban Industrial Property Office Industrial Property Office (Czech Republic) German Patent and Trade Mark Office Algerian National Institute of Industrial Property Spanish Patent and Trademark Office Directorate General of Intellectual Property (Indonesia) Patent Office (India) Japan Patent Office Korean Intellectual Property Office Lithuanian Patent Office Mexican Institute of Industrial Property Norwegian Patent Office Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines Turkish Patent Institute United States Patent and Trademark Office |
Even when a notice of incompatibility is not filed, complying offices my apply one or both of: 1) a test based on whether there was due care or 2) a test based on whether the failure to file was unintentional.
For Example -
The EPO in its function both as receiving Office and as designated/ elected Office will grant such a request only if the failure to claim the right of priority within the priority period occurred in spite of due care required by the circumstances having been taken. The requirement of due care is applied by the EPO in accordance with its standing practice under Article 122 EPC. The second criterion referred to in the PCT, whether the failure was unintentional, does not play a role in the procedures before the EPO (see point 629).
(source:http://www.epo.org/applying/international/guide-for-applicants/html/e/ga_e_xiii_5.html)
For Example -
The EPO in its function both as receiving Office and as designated/ elected Office will grant such a request only if the failure to claim the right of priority within the priority period occurred in spite of due care required by the circumstances having been taken. The requirement of due care is applied by the EPO in accordance with its standing practice under Article 122 EPC. The second criterion referred to in the PCT, whether the failure was unintentional, does not play a role in the procedures before the EPO (see point 629).
(source:http://www.epo.org/applying/international/guide-for-applicants/html/e/ga_e_xiii_5.html)
In incompatible jurisdictions stricter tests may apply. Generally advice will have to be sought from a patent attorney in each jurisdiction in which protection is required/desired.
The following YOUTUBE video provides some guidance for compatible countries: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzdMsfFeR1s.
The following YOUTUBE video provides some guidance for compatible countries: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzdMsfFeR1s.