E.G B
ID:0714384780
Publication of the application in Hong Kong
17 DEC 93 11:53 No.003 P.05
7. We would welcome some clarification of the proposed procedure at the Hong Kong
application or 'request to record' stage. It appears from the PSC report that, although an
abstract and drawings are to be published, the abstract may not be in English and the full
application, which includes the specification of the EP application, will not be open to
public inspection. The draft consultation paper appears to recognise the problem of
specifications, abstracts &c not in English by stipulating the need for translations, but it
would seem desirable that the full EP application, including the specification, should be
available for public inspection when the Hong Kong request to record is published. This
would seem to be essential to ensure fairness to potential infringers if full rights are to
commence from publication of the request to record (paragraph 12(p) of the draft
consultation paper). (We assume that rights accruing from the date of publication of the
request to record are limited by the scope of the claims of the application rather then those
of the granted patent.)
INTRODUCTION OF A PETTY PATENT SYSTEM
8. As you know, the UK does not have a petty patent or other second tier system and
thus has no direct knowledge of the difficulties or otherwise of operating such a system
alongside a full patent system; however, there are a number of countries which do
successfully operate a two tier system of protection. The low number of re-registrations of
patents in Hong Kong suggests there may be an unmet need for some form of second tier
protection. The PSC recommendations for a petty patent should result in protection being
provided straightforwardly and quickly and the safeguards, such as the need to file a
search report with the application, appear sensible.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.