2.
It is suggested that in the event of the introduction of a HK utility model, a possibility discussed during Mr.de Speville's visit to Munich, the HK, law could include a
patent procedure for the conversion of a HK application into one for a HK utility model. This would be particularly useful for applicants, whose EP application has not led to the grant of a EP patent. In this context, we may refer to Articles 135-137 and 140 EPC which could serve as a model.
3.
The proposed system is certainly generous as far as the time limit for the filing of a HK application based on a previous EP application is concerned (point 1). On the other hand, it is obvious that most applicants will prefer to proceed with the filing of the HK application as soon as possible, i.e. practically simultaneously with the EP filing, because the HK patent will be considered to be granted with effect from the date of filing of the HK application but remain in force for 20 years beginning with the filing of the
EP application (point 6). An important help to these applicants could be given for the cases where the EP application in not in English. The HK patent law could allow such EP applicants to file the original text of their application provided they subsequently file an English translation within a prescribed time limit.
Apart from these suggestions, the EPO can only greet the fact that the authorities of Hong-Kong are orientating themselves towards a solution which attests the world-wide recognition of the advantages and the high quality of the European grant
procedure.
Ku
G. KOLLE