"[...] Patent authorities from Japan, the United States and Europe will begin discussions toward the introduction of a system for mutual recognition of patents, government sources said Thursday.
If the system is realized, patents awarded in one country, such as Japan, would be issued in the other regions - in this case, the United States and Europe - as well, according to the sources.
Heads of three patent authorities, Japan's Patent Office, the European Patent Office and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, will sign an agreement at their Trilateral Cooperation conference to be held next Friday in Tokyo on setting up a working panel for the purpose.
The standardized application forms would be introduced for trial by the three parties from spring of 2007, with the official introduction planned for 2008, said the sources.
If the system is realized, Japanese companies, for instance, will save about 84 billion yen annually in costs necessary for taking patents in the United States and Europe, including charges for filing applications and expenses for chartered patent agents. The new process also will speed up the process of taking foreign patents considerably.
Under the patent mutual recognition system, if Japan's Patent Office approved and registered an invention, the U.S. and European patent offices would register it without examination.
According to a draft for the written agreement obtained by The Yomiuri Shimbun, patent applications, which differ among the three parties, will be standardized in 2008. [...]"
Well, a Japanese pet projekt, as far as I know. I am a little bit in doubt as to whether it will become reality in any forseeable future.
See also this Document from 2002 titled "Comments from Japan to Patent Agenda":
"[...]
Towards Realization of World Patent
In order to reduce the patent offices' workload and applicants' cost for obtaining patent, which are mainly caused by the recent increase of worldwide patent applications, the discussions on the PCT reform and the SPLT have been already conducted.
Although the PCT system, which enables filing to plural countries through one application, has been greatly successful, it is time to explore the possibility of the reform into the more efficient system through streamlining the procedures including coordination of IS and IPE.
Along with the discussion of the reform, it is also an urgent issue to review the competencies of the ISA and the IPEA from the view point of maximizing productivity of the limited resources in the ISA/IPEA to tackle the rapidly increasing PCT applications.
On the other hand, the discussion of the SPLT was resumed based on the concept of "deep harmonization in the limited items." This aims at enabling each patent office to get same search/examination results through detailed harmonization of substantive requirements in both legislative and practical aspects as a basic premise, which could be considered a promising solution to the increasing workload/cost problems.
Although mutual usage of search/examination results does not mean that patent offices automatically accept other offices' results as legally binding ones without their own examination, it could eliminate duplicated works conducted by related patent offices, to some extend. In proportion to the usability of other offices' results, applicants can enjoy the reduction of costs, not only the cost for domestic search/examination, but also the cost for corresponding actions and/or translations which have to be submitted to offices. In order to promote the usage of search/examination results, it is necessary to take measures to maintain or develop the qualities of patent offices' works in an objective manner and bring the reliability between offices.
Such trends are shown in "Modified Substantial Examination"(MSE) system which has already been introduced to some countries and has been advantageous, especially, to the small and medium sized patent offices with limited search/examination resources.
Furthermore, such trends would be accelerated by establishment of deep harmonization of substantive requirements, which include practical level, through the SPLT, and finally would realize "mutual recognition" as a binding nature, which would be automatically accepted from other offices' examination result. This mutual recognition mechanism can be especially applicable in an effective manner to Paris route applications.
With regards to PCT route applications, the usage of ISR and IPER at the national phase would be facilitated in the framework to be established by the SPLT. Moreover, if the practice under the SPLT is incorporated into the practice under the PCT system and the both practices become fully harmonized, it would be possible to recognize automatically IPEA's decision as a binding decision in every national phase.
Recent developments of information technology as well as machine translation have gradually prepared the technological infrastructure as a basis for mutual use/recognition of search/examination results. This infrastructure will enhance facilitated access to prior art databases in patent offices and private sectors and enable even small patent offices to have an equal search environment that will make their search/ examination abilities homogenized with other large-sized offices.
Such measures with workload/cost reduction may contribute to a present approach toward ultimate realization of world patent system, which allows patent rights valid in each country through one search/examination procedure based on the same patent requirements among countries on respective applications basis with the same contents. If mutual recognition system is introduced as a multilateral system, we should put forward future patent system which is not the centralized office collecting the present offices' facilities but the virtual office based on a networked linkage of the present offices' facilities.
This virtual world patent system, which could minimize the workload/cost, could also enable possible reallocation of the unevenly distributed workload in a detailed and flexible manner. At that stage, it would be possible to explore more progressive solution of the review of the competency for PCT route applications and of the question which country's search/examination results should be made available first in Paris route applications. It is no doubt that this principle could be applicable not only to international applications but also to domestic applications, leading to the possibility to make domestic workload shared with other offices. [...]"
Feel free to contact PA Axel H Horns via e-mail
horns@ipjur.com. BEWARE: DO NOT SEND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNENCRYPTED VIA E-MAIL. USE OF ENCRYPTION SOFTWARE IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. PA AXEL H HORNS IS PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR ENCRYPTED E-MAIL MESSAGES USING PGP OR PGP COMPATIBLE FORMATS. THE PGP PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE
HERE. THE GnuPG PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE
HERE.
Dipl.-Phys. Axel H Horns is Patentanwalt (German Patent Attorney),
European Patent Attorney as well as European Trade Mark Attorney. In particular, he is Member of:
this news:
