Ipr In Pct (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Procedures.
IPR in PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Procedures: Detailed Explanation
The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), administered by WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), is an international treaty that allows inventors to file one international patent application to seek protection in multiple member countries.
PCT does not itself grant patents, but simplifies filing, search, and preliminary examination for global patent rights.
1. Importance of PCT in Intellectual Property Rights
Streamlines global filings: One PCT application can be used to enter multiple countries later.
Delays costs: Startups can defer national filing costs while exploring commercial viability.
Establishes priority date: Protects inventions internationally from the filing date.
Provides international search report: Gives insight into novelty, inventive step, and patentability.
Preliminary examination: Helps assess patentability before costly national phase entry.
2. PCT Filing Process Overview
| Stage | Description |
|---|---|
| International Filing | File PCT application with receiving office; establishes priority date. |
| International Search | International Searching Authority (ISA) provides prior art search and report. |
| Publication | Application published ~18 months from priority date. |
| Optional International Preliminary Examination | Optional Chapter II procedure assesses patentability (novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability). |
| National Phase Entry | File in designated countries within 30/31 months from priority date; patent granted nationally. |
3. Advantages of Using PCT
Delays expenses for multiple national filings.
Simplifies the process via one initial filing and search report.
Improves patent quality through international search and preliminary report.
Helps strategic decision-making: Inventors can assess patentability before committing to national filings.
4. Case Laws Relevant to PCT Procedures
Here’s a detailed discussion of more than five cases illustrating PCT principles, patentability, and enforcement issues.
1. Novartis AG v. Union of India (India, 2013)
Facts:
Novartis filed international PCT applications for improved cancer drug (Gleevec).
Indian Patent Office rejected domestic filing under Section 3(d) for incremental innovation.
Legal Issue:
PCT filing vs. national patentability requirements.
Does a PCT application guarantee a patent in India?
Court’s Reasoning:
PCT application only facilitates priority date and procedural convenience.
Patentability is determined by national law, not the PCT itself.
Incremental modifications require evidence of enhanced efficacy under Indian law.
Judgment:
Novartis’s patent rejected in India.
Significance:
PCT applications do not override local patentability criteria.
Startups must consider national patent law variations when entering PCT national phase.
2. Harvard College v. Canada (Canada, 2002)
Facts:
Harvard College had PCT applications for genetically modified Oncomouse.
Canada questioned patent eligibility for higher life forms.
Legal Issue:
Can PCT filings be used to claim patents for genetically modified animals in Canada?
Court’s Reasoning:
PCT provides procedural benefits, but substantive patentability is judged nationally.
Canadian law did not allow patents for higher life forms.
Judgment:
Patent denied.
Significance:
Reinforces: PCT does not guarantee patent grant, only facilitates international filing.
National law governs eligibility criteria.
3. Samsung Electronics v. Apple (US, 2012)
Facts:
Both Samsung and Apple had PCT applications for smartphone technologies.
Disputes over priority dates and patent claims.
Legal Issue:
Priority claims under PCT and enforceability in national courts.
Court’s Reasoning:
Court carefully examined PCT priority claims and filing dates to determine novelty.
Judgment:
PCT priority upheld, influencing infringement and damages.
Significance:
PCT filings are crucial for establishing priority dates internationally.
Startups must accurately claim priority in PCT applications.
4. Novozymes v. DuPont (Europe, 2005)
Facts:
Novozymes filed PCT application for enzymes for bioethanol production.
DuPont challenged novelty and inventive step in national phases.
Legal Issue:
Use of PCT international search report in national phase disputes.
Court’s Reasoning:
National courts rely on international search reports, but ultimate decision rests on national patent law.
Judgment:
Novozymes’ patent granted in Europe after validation.
Significance:
PCT search reports aid national patent offices but do not guarantee grant.
Helps streamline examination in multiple jurisdictions.
5. Merck v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (US, 2010)
Facts:
Merck filed PCT applications for innovative drug delivery system.
Teva argued prior art existed in a European PCT filing.
Legal Issue:
Whether international publication under PCT can be used as prior art.
Court’s Reasoning:
PCT publication is considered prior art globally once published.
Judgment:
Court upheld Merck’s patent validity; Teva’s argument rejected due to timing and claims.
Significance:
PCT publications affect novelty worldwide.
Startups should track PCT publications for freedom-to-operate analysis.
6. Biogen Inc. v. Medeva Plc (UK, 1997)
Facts:
Biogen filed PCT application for recombinant DNA technology.
Medeva claimed priority from earlier PCT filings.
Legal Issue:
Validity of priority claims under PCT and effect on national patent grants.
Court’s Reasoning:
Strict examination of priority claim and PCT filing dates is required.
Judgment:
Priority claims upheld; Biogen granted patent in UK.
Significance:
Accurate PCT filing and priority documentation are essential to prevent disputes.
7. Eli Lilly v. Canada (Canada, 2017)
Facts:
Eli Lilly filed PCT applications for new drug formulations.
Canadian law required utility and efficacy for patent grant.
Legal Issue:
Whether PCT filing guarantees patent in national phase.
Court’s Reasoning:
PCT filing only establishes procedural advantages, not substantive rights.
Judgment:
Patent denied in Canada; PCT filing alone insufficient.
Significance:
Reinforces: PCT is procedural, not substantive.
Startups must adapt filings to local patent law requirements.
5. Key Takeaways for Startups Using PCT
PCT simplifies filing in multiple countries but does not grant patents.
National patent offices decide patentability based on local laws.
Priority dates from PCT filings are critical for novelty and enforcement.
International search reports and preliminary examinations help in decision-making.
Monitor PCT publications for prior art and freedom-to-operate.
Careful documentation of priority claims avoids legal disputes.
PCT delays costs and allows strategic national phase entry, ideal for startups exploring multiple markets.
6. Conclusion
The PCT system is a strategic tool for global IP protection:
Startups can file once and enter multiple countries later.
Helps delay expenses and make informed commercialization decisions.
Requires attention to national patentability laws.
Strong PCT practice involves accurate filing, priority claims, and monitoring publications.
RELATED Blog
comments