The official fees incurred for filing, prosecuting, registering and renewing patents, designs and trademarks in Israel are linked to the cost of living index. Twice a year, on 1 January and on 1 June, they are adjusted. It seems that living in Israel is ever more expensive, and each adjustment makes each fee a few Shekels more.
WIPO works differently. From time to time their fees for PCT related services are adjusted, but not necessarily upwards.
As of 1 January 2015 the basic international filing fee for a PCT application will drip from $1471 to $1384. Excess page fees will drop from $17 a page to $16 a page.
If one elects the EPO as the international Search and Examination Office, the search will cost $2366 instead of the current $2545.
Using PCT Easy saves $104 per application, and filing electronically as XML or similar saves $208. It is possible to combine these and file electronically using PCT Easy, saving $312.
The Israel Patent Law 1967 allows corrections and ammendments. Scribal errors can be corrected at any time. Claims can be amended during prosecution, provided there is support for the amendments in the specfication. Under Sectons 65 and 66, on allowance, both during opposition proceedings and after the patent issues at patentee’s request, the scope of the claims may be amended provided the amendment is a narrowing of the claim coverage.
Albermarle Corporation filed Israel Patent Number 141905 titled “IMPROVED BROMINATED POLYSTYRENIC RESINS AND THEIR USE”. The invention relates to brominated polystyrenes as a fire retardant. The patent was filed in 1999 and was allowed and published for Opposition Purposes in 2009.
Tarkovot Bromium LTD opposed the patent, and the two companies have been battling back and forth for the past 5 years. Now Albermarle has requested to amend the claims. The proposed amendments is the addition of the underlined in the following claims:
“1. A brominated styrenic polymer that has ∆E solution value of said polymer if dissolved at the level of 10 wt% in chlorobenzene in the range of from about 3 to about 15,÷ an ionic bromine content of 2000 ppm or less, and at least two of the following additional characteristics:
23. A brominated polystyrene characterized in that it has
An ionic bromine content of 1000 ppm or less;
- A TGA temperature for 1% weight loss which is 340°C. or higher;
- A chlorine content, if any, of less than about 100 ppm Cl;
- A thermal stability in the Thermal Stability Test of 1500 ppm HBr or less;
- An actual Mw which is within about 20% of its calculated theoretical Mw, the theoretical Mw being based upon the actual bromine content of the brominated styrenic polymer and the Mw of the styrenic polymer reactant used to produce the brominated styrenic polymer; and
- Essentially no content of impurities selected from the group consisting of bromodichloroethane, dibromochloroethane, dibromodichloroethane, and tribromochloroethane.; and
- ∆E solution color value of said polymer if dissolved at the level of 10 wt% in chlorobenzene in the range of from about 3 to about 15.
48. A composition which comprises a thermoplastic polymer having blended therewith at least a flame retardant amount of brominated styrenic polymer having, prior to blending, a total bromine content of about 50 wt% or more, a TGA temperature for 1% weight loss which is 340°C. or higher, and a chlorine content, if any, of less than about 700 ppm, and a ∆E solution color value of said polymer if dissolved at the level of 10 wt% in chlorobenzene in the range of from about 3 to about 15.
56. A composition which comprises a thermoplastic polymer having blended therewith at least a flame retardant amount of brominated styrenic polymer having, prior to blending, a total bromine content above about 50 wt%, and a thermal stability in the Thermal Stability Test of 200 ppm HBr or less, and a ∆E solution color value of said polymer if dissolved at the level of 10 wt% in chlorobenzene in the range of from about 3 to about 15.
The parties agree that the additional phrase “∆E solution color value of said polymer if dissolved at the level of 10 wt% in chlorobenzene in the range of from about 3 to about 15″ is supported by the specfication.
Patent Office Interim Decision re Il 141905, Torkovot Brome vs. Albermarle, Decision by Asa Kling, 12 November 2014.
Back in June 2009, I reported on the ceremonial launch of Haifa University’s Masters in Law program in Patent Law – see here.
Recently fired Minister of Justice, Tzippy Livni, authorized the Commissioner of Patents to rule on whether such programs would provide a dispensation from patent office exams for would-be patent attorneys. In September of this year, I reported about the standards for obtaining dispensation from the theory exam for patent attorneys. See here and here. Essentially, so long as the degree covers all subject matter, such as trademarks, designs, basic foreign requirements, international treaties and procedural issues, the top 20% graduating will be entitled to a dispensation from the theory exam.
The long awaited Master’s Degree in Patent Law at Haifa University is finally on
the Patent Prosecution Highway on its way. The first intake is this January. Some candidates have already signed up, but there are apparently places available.
It occurs to me, that someone interested back when the program was launched has had time to do the prerequisite science or engineering degree, and to have then done two years on the job training (hitmachut). No doubt however, there are some additional wannabe patent attorneys out there who think that this degree is the key to fame and fortune.
We wish the faculty and students every success with this endeavour!
In an earlier post, I reported on a meeting held between the Examiners of the Trademark Department and practitioners.
The Patent Office has no published their official summary of the meeting. It may be found here: סיכום מפגש בוחנים-עורכי פטנטים בתחום סימני מסחר מיום 25.11.2014.
IL 177920 to Rafi and Rephael Nachushtan is titled “CELLULAR DEVICE SECURITY APPARATUS AND METHOD” issued on 4 May 2013. The first renewal was due three months later, however the patentees missed the deadline, and after a further six months, the patent went abandoned.
The application was originally filed by Appelfeld Zer Fisher Weiler, who presumably drafted the application. The prosecution was handled by Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz, and on issuance, the Applicant claims to have taken control of the case. However, the evidence submitted as a letter to the patent office was not in the patent office file. No change of address was recorded and no fee was paid. ON discovering that the patent had lapsed, apparently being informed by the Attorneys of record, the Applicants attempted to revive the patent and submitted a first affidavit through the offices of Ehrlich & Fenster. This first Affidavit was considered to leave too many gaps in the chain of events and didn’t correlate with the Israel Patent Office record. The Nachushtans were given a second opportunity and that was also considered unsatisfactory.
Ms Jacqueline Bracha refused to allow the patent to be reinstated, but has given the Applicants an opportunity to set up a hearing to appeal the decision and to answer questions.