According to WIPO, the backlog in pending patent applications around the world that are waiting for examination now stands at 4.2 million – see the following press release.
One way to make the examination system more efficient is, of, course, greater collaboration between the various national / regional patent offices. Although there are differences regarding patentable subject matter and the degree of inventive step or non-obviousness required for a claim to be patentable, broadly standards are similar and novelty is supposed to be absolute.
The Israel Patent Law includes a highly efficient examination evasion procedure detailed in Section 17c, wherein the claims allowed by any of a long list of examining countries can be obtained in Israel without substantive examination. Under the current Commissioner of Patents, Dr. Noam, the idea has been extended to include a positive ISR, allowance based on an allowed patent without formally invoking Section 17c and other efficiency improving innovations.
Associates in Australia have brought to our attention that
“in response to the economic downturn, the Australian Patent Office is offering applicants the chance to withdraw their request for examination and therefore to forgo the obtaining of patent rights in exchange for a refund of the official fee of Au $420″.
This is, of course, another way to reduce backlogs.
“in response to the economic downturn, the Australian Patent Office is offering applicants the chance to withdraw their request for examination and therefore to forgo the obtaining of patent rights in exchange for a refund of the official fee of Au $420″.
Perhaps this example of innovative and “out of the box” thinking by the Australian Patent Office is what moved the Israeli Commissioner to put the Aussies back on the list for 17C allowance?
Maybe, I think it was an under-the-table deal to get Australian support for Israel to become an ISA, but maybe I am being cynical…
Yes, but Australia’s tactic of reducing backlogs could also lead to reducing innovation. This potentially sacrifices inventiveness for the sake of promoting efficiency. Internationalizing patent law seems like a somewhat better way to address the problem.
http://www.GeneralPatent.com