after 1997. If and when we obtain their agreement, it would
then be wise to ensure that WIPO have no objection to the
arrangement. Our understanding is that they are not likely to
object. Since the legal position under the Treaty is not absolutely clear, it is possible that an objection might be
raised by another Treaty party after notice of the new
arrangement has been circulated. However, the chance of there any such objection seems to us to be remote. If no objection
were raised within a reasonable time, we could assume
acquiescence by the other parties.
9.
If a separate Hong Kong receiving office were established,
as far as we can see, it should be possible for it to nominate
International Search Authorities (ISAs) and International
Preliminary Examination Authorities (IPEAS) other than those
used by the UK office.
CHANGES TO THE UK PATENTS ACT 1977
a
10. We note that the PSC report recognises a number of areas
which my need adjustment as a result of the GATT TRIPS
X
agreement and the Patent Harmonisation Treaty. You have asked what changes will be made to UK patent law in this respect.
Until the treaties have been concluded, and the latter has no
definite timetable for this to occur, it is difficult to
discuss this in more than the general terms recognised in the
PSC report. Clearly, a number of changes will be called for,
including the acceptance of documents in foreign languages to establish a date of filing, the introduction of a grace period
during which an earlier publication of the invention by the applicant will not invalidate the application, embodiment of
an equivalents doctrine for claim interpretation and so on.