know whether the proposed split is feasible. This needs to be considered carefully by the technical experts in the Patent office and the DTI.
6. If it is desired to go ahead with the establishment of a separate HK office, a proposal would need to be put to the Chinese. If they agreed (which seems rather unlikely), it would then be wise to obtain the agreement of WIPO. It would then need to be circulated to other Contracting States. In the absence of objection within a stipulated time, the arrangement could be taken to have been accepted.
7. I note that there is amongst the papers a letter from the Legal Division of WIPO which says that they doubt it would be advisable for HK to have a separate receiving office. However it is not clear whether this view is based on legal, practical or political grounds. You could perhaps phone the author of that letter and ask him/her to elaborate.
8.
Hong Kong cannot become a party to the PCT. Article 62 provides only for State members of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property to become parties.
9. I see no reason why the UK Patent office should not set up a branch office in Hong Kong. The PCT says nothing about how receiving offices are to be organised internally. I would think that most of the potential practical problems raised in para 5 would be avoided, since the HK branch would be clearly subordinate to the UK Office, and so there would be no risk of our national authorities speaking with more than one apparently authoritative voice.
10. I also see no reason why a HK branch office should have to use the same International Search Authoritity or Authorities, or the same International Preliminary Examination Authority or Authorities as the UK Office.. However, Article 16(2) requires each receiving office to specify the I S Authority or Authorities competent for the searching of internatonal applications filed with such office. If HK wanted to use an ISA not specified by the UK office already, the UK Office would need to add it to the list. It is not clear how the specification is to be made; it might be done by national legislation or perhaps by notification to WIPO. You would need to ask the Patent office how they have given effect to this provision. The same observations apply to the obligation under Article 32 (2) to specify the competent IPE Authority or Authorities.
11. I trust this answers your questions sufficiently. Should you require further advice, please be so kind as to let me know.
Julk Banoff
Jill Barrett
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.