Provisional Refusals under the Madrid Protocol: Country by Country Guide – EU and UK

By Moeller IP Team.

If you’re reading this, it’s safe to imagine that you have applied for an International Trademark, filled out all the forms, and followed the TM registration procedure, but now you are faced with a Notification of Provisional Refusal. One (or more) of the national trademark offices has found a potential problem with your application for IP protection in their country. Or, perhaps you’re looking to file a provisional refusal against a foreign company that would be infringing upon your IP. Now, depending on the national office, the details of how exactly to oppose such a notification vary depending on the national IP office’s rules and regulations. This is the first of a [X] part, country by country guide on how to oppose a provisional refusal when registering for an International Trademark.

European Union Notice of Opposition Proceedings

When filing for an international trademark in order to protect your brand across Europe, it may be more convenient and economical to designate the EU as the protected territory instead of individual countries. The manner in which the EUIPO deals with such a designation differs to other countries such as the UK, where the procedure is dealt with nationally.

When the EUIPO receives an application through the WIPO, it will publish the requested trademark’s details in the EUTM Bulletin in Part M, which is dedicated entirely to international TM registrations. Once published through the Bulletin, the EUIPO will:

1. Prepare search reports (which, if you wish to access them, you will have to request a copy).

2. Conduct an examination of various formalities that may be relevant to your particular application.

3. Conduct an examination of potential absolute grounds for refusal and of any oppositions that are placed by pre-existing trademark holders within the EU.

We will focus on the procedure for any notice of opposition (or provisional refusal). EU trademark holders will have 3 months from the publication of the application in the EUTM Bulletin to file an opposition – this 3-month period starts exactly 1 months after the application has been published in the Bulletin. If the EUIPO accepts the notice of opposition, then a notice of provisional refusal is sent to the WIPO, where the applicant will consequently be notified. At this moment, the need for a European representative may arise. This would occur if the applicant is not domiciled within the European Economic Area (EEA).

Once the opposition has been admitted by the EUIPO, the applicant and opponent will have to follow the EU procedure for notices of opposition.

United Kingdom Notice of Opposition Proceedings

The UK is a historic world economy that has always hosted a vast array of businesses, so it would come as no surprise if you were to be looking to protect your IP in Britain. In the UK, two key pieces of legislation are the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Trade Marks Rules 2008. Once the application has been accepted by the IPO, it will be published in the UK IP Journal.

In the UK, the provisional refusal is referred to as a notice of opposition, much like when registering for an EU Trademark. From the date of publishing, any pre-existing trademark holder may, within a period of 2 months, file a notice of opposition by filling out Form TM7, being sure to pay special attention to the grounds of opposition. This should clearly explain the reasons for which you are opposing the trademark registration – whenever reinforced by sound legal arguments, even better. The IPO registrar would then communicate this notice to the applicant.

The applicant will then have to file a counterstatement through Form TM8 within 2 months of the Notification Date. However, if both parties agree, they may opt-in for a ‘cooling-off period’ of 9 months, which can be extended another 9 months through Form TM9c, also within 2 months of the date of notification. This period would give the parties time to negotiate with each other and come to some sort of amicable agreement. If unsuccessful, the applicant files Form TM8 and the procedure continues. For the opponent, Form TM9t would be the corresponding form to end the cooling-off period.

Depending on the type of opposition made, you will then enter Evidence Rounds or receive Preliminary Indications.

Preliminary Indications

If the notice of opposition results in Preliminary Indications, the Registrar will examine the case and explain to the parties what the most likely outcome will be upon reviewing the evidence. It should be noted that either party can withdraw their application or opposition at any time. If, however, one of the parties is still wanting to pursue their trademark claim, they may file Form TM53 within one month of receiving the Preliminary Indications, which will then initiate the Evidence Rounds.

Evidence Rounds

For the Evidence Rounds, the opponent has 2-3 months (extendable if they convince the Registrar) to file their evidence-in-chief, starting from the date the opponent received Form TM8. This is the main legal basis of your claim against the applicant, where you may also be requested to submit evidence proving that you have been and still are using your Trademark.

Once filed in its entirety, the applicant now has 2-3 months (extendable if they convince the Registrar) to do the same, legally backing their trademark application and its validity. The opponent then has another 2 months to do respond to the applicant’s counterstatement.

The case will then be reviewed by the IPO and, if requested by either of the parties, a Hearing may be called, where the two parties argue their case before the IPO. The IPO will give their decision and that will be the end of the administrative proceedings.

However, if the final decision was unfavourable to you, it is still possible to appeal the decision. The type of appeal and the national entity responsible for hearing the appeal will vary greatly depending on the specific decision.

To give one example, if you are the applicant appealing against an unfavourable decision that has ultimately rejected your trademark application, you can submit Form TM55 within 28 days of the decision in question. This, however, might not be the right procedure for you. You can find out more about the appeals process here.

If you would like to speak with a lawyer experienced in these proceedings in order to have the best chance possible of winning your claim, please do get in touch.

What is a Notice of Opposition Against an EU Trademark Application and What Can I Do About it?

By Moeller IP Team.

When filing for an EU Trademark to protect your brand, you might receive a Notice of Opposition from the EUIPO. You might be worried about this. Maybe you’re asking yourself: What is a notice of opposition? What can I do to register my trademark now? How can I make sure that my brand is protected in the EU? In this article, we will explain what a Notice of Opposition is and how to deal with it to ensure that you protect your IP. First, let’s remind ourselves of the application process for EU trademarks.

Recap of EU Trademark Application Process

We must remember that once you have sent your application away, the EUIPO examiner will analyze it and look for any problems. If provisionally approved, your application will be published in the EU Trade Marks Bulletin for all to see. Any party that already owns a registered trademark now has 3 months to file a Notice of Opposition, which will prevent you from being granted protection for your trademark.

What is a Notice of Opposition?

A Notice of Opposition filed by a preregistered EU trademark holder is a claim to the EUIPO that your future trademark infringes on their pre-existing trademark, or is too similar and could cause confusion. This must be done by the opposing party within 3 months of publication in the EU Trade Marks Bulletin.

Once the filing has been completed, and the opposing party has paid the corresponding fees, the Opposition Division of the EUIPO will examine the Notice and determine its admissibility. This admissibility test is conducted in accordance with the EU Trademark Regulation. If it passes the test, you will be advised of the Notice and the next phase of the procedure will begin.

What can I do against a Notice of Opposition?

In order to go against a Notice of Opposition, you must first know the procedure that will be followed. Firstly, there will be a 2-month period in which you may negotiate with the opposing party to try to come to some sort of arrangement. If unsuccessful, you will then have to argue before the EUIPO. These are known as the cooling-off period and the adversarial stage.

Cooling-off period

Once you have been informed of the Notice of Opposition, a 2-month period begins in which you and the opposing party may attempt to reach a friendly settlement. This is known as the ‘cooling-off’ period. If you are able to reach an agreement with the opposing party, then whatever you agree shall be established and neither side will have to pay any costs for further phases of the procedure. If, however, you are unable to come to an agreement, the adversarial stage shall begin in which you must argue with the opposing party before the EUIPO as to why your trademark should be granted protection and, more importantly, why it is not infringing on the pre-existing trademark, nor is so similar that it would cause confusion.

Adversarial stage

In this next stage, the opposing party must complete his opposition filing within 2 months of the end of the cooling-off period – the Notice of Opposition was merely provisional. Here, the opposing party will include all evidence that supports his case, as well as proving that the IP rights he is invoking from his trademark truly exist and are valid. For an extensive description of what the opposing party must file and the requirements for doing so, check the Guidelines for Examination in the Office.

Responding to the Opposition

Proof of Use

In responding to the opposition, in the case that you believe the opposing party may very well have a registered trademark, but is not actually using it, you may request proof of use. This requires the opposing party to submit additional documentation that proves that he is actively using his trademark in a commercial environment. It is essential that every trademark owner is aware that it’s using it or lose it when it comes to opposition proceedings.

Restrictions of your Trademark Application

When filing the application to register your trademark, you will have had to specify which goods and services are traded under the brand. As this could be the grounds for the Opposition in the first place, you may also decide to restrict your application in order to limit the goods and services you provide under that brand, to prevent any potential infringement of the opposing party’s protection. This would only work in specific cases in which you and the opposing party are operating in similar or overlapping sectors. It is important to mention here that the EUIPO will not accept restrictions that are conditional. The restriction must be absolute and unconditional.

Formulate a Strong Legal Argument Behind Why Your Trademark Application is Acceptable

This may seem rather obvious, but it is much easier said than done. There is a reason that lawyers dedicate their entire professional lives to IP law. It is an area of the law that is always changing and evolving, not to mention that it has the potential to be incredibly subjective, given that a key factor in a EUIPO decision is how similar it looks compared to the pre-existing trademark.

If you want to have the best chances at a successful trademark application, it is highly recommended to hire the services of an experienced IP lawyer to go through the process with you. At Moeller IP, we have been practicing solely IP law for nearly 100 years across the world, and there is still more to do. If you would like to clarify some doubts, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us right away.

European Patent Office Issued Opinion G 3/19 (Pepper) on 14.05.20

By José Santacroce. Partner and Head of Patent Department.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office issued opinion G 3/19 (Pepper) on 14.05.20 and concluded that plants and animals exclusively obtained by essentially biological processes are not patentable.

The key concepts of opinion G 3/19

The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office adopted a dynamic interpretation of the exception to patentability under Article 53(b) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and held that the non-patentability of essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals also extends to plant or animal products that are exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process.

Background

The Enlarged Board of Appeal is the highest judicial authority under the EPC, which provides for an autonomous legal system that is separate from the European Union. The Enlarged Board’s main task is to ensure the uniform application of the EPC.

Under Article 53(b) EPC, European patents shall not be granted in respect of plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals. Rule 28(2) EPC provides that under Article 53(b) EPC, European patents shall not be granted in respect of plants or animals exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process.

Rule 28(2) EPC was introduced by the decision of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation and came into force on 1 July 2017.

In 2015, the Enlarged Board had concluded in its decisions G 2/12 and G 2/13 within the then applicable legal framework, i.e. before the introduction of Rule 28(2) EPC, that the non‑patentability of essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals under Article 53(b) EPC did not extend to products that are exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process.

In 2018, a Technical Board of Appeal held in decision T 1063/18 that new Rule 28(2) EPC had no impact on the interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC, and followed the Enlarged Board’s earlier decisions G 2/12 and G 2/13.

In 2019, the President of the European Patent Office referred a point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 112(1)(b) EPC concerning the interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC in view of legal and other developments occurring after decisions G 2/12 and G 2/13, and in particular in view of new Rule 28(2) EPC.

Key considerations

In its opinion issued today, the Enlarged Board of Appeal held the referral by the President of the European Patent Office to be admissible within the terms of a re‑phrased question. On the merits of the referral, the Enlarged Board endorsed its earlier findings on the scope of Article 53(b) EPC, which were based on the classical (i.e. the grammatical, systematic, teleological and historical) methods of interpretation. However, the Enlarged Board found that a particular interpretation which has been given to a legal provision can never be taken as carved in stone, because the meaning of the provision may change or evolve over time. This meant that decisions G 2/12 and G 2/13 did not settle the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC once and for all.

Taking account of the Administrative Council’s decision to introduce Rule 28(2) EPC, the preparatory work on this provision and the circumstances of its adoption, as well as legislative developments in the EPC contracting states, the Enlarged Board concluded that new Rule 28(2) EPC allowed and indeed called for a dynamic interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC.

In adopting this dynamic interpretation, the Enlarged Board abandoned its earlier interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC in decisions G 2/12 and G 2/13. It held that, after the introduction of new Rule 28(2) EPC, Article 53(b) EPC was to be interpreted to exclude from patentability plants, plant material or animals, if the claimed product is exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process or if the claimed process features define an essentially biological process.

In order to ensure legal certainty and to protect the legitimate interests of patent proprietors and applicants, the Enlarged Board ruled that the new interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC given in G 3/19 had no retroactive effect on European patents containing such claims which were granted before 1 July 2017, or on pending European patent applications seeking protection for such claims which were filed before that date.

Source: www.epo.org

The ePrivacy Regulation: the European Union’s Final Piece to the Digital Privacy Puzzle

By Ivan Blomqvist.

ePrivacy Regulation (ePR)

The “Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the respect for private life and the protection of personal data in electronic communications and repealing Directive 2002/58/EC (Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications)”, known also as the ePrivacy Regulation (ePR), is a proposed legal act of the European Union, enforceable as law in all member states, that intends to focus on a more expansive regulation of electronic communications by outlining data security laws and reinforcing rules regarding the electronic transfer of data.

Noncompliance of ePrivacy Regulation could mean penalties of up to 20 million euros or, in the case of an undertaking, up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.

ePrivacy Regulation objectives

The ePrivacy Regulation plans to account for the new players providing electronic communications services like WhatsApp and Skype, while benefiting from one single set of rules across all of the European Union.

It also looks to simplify the provision of cookies by utilizing rules that are friendlier to users and to prohibit unsolicited electronic communications, commonly referred to as spam, such as emails, text messages and automated calls. Additionally, the ePR seeks to repeal the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC), also referred to as the ePrivacy Directive (ePD), while also overriding the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on specific matters (lex specialis).

Since its inception in 2017, the ePR has been the subject of many discussions in the Council of the European Union. But, despite its progress, common ground could not be found on the some matters like the protection of terminal equipment information, the processing of electronic communications data by third parties, and the cooperation among data protection and telecommunications regulatory authorities.

In 2020, the current Presidency of the Council of the European Union released a newly revised draft of the ePrivacy Regulation in which it focuses on metadata and what can be considered as “legitimate interests” to process it and to also place cookies on end-users’ devices.

Companies obligations  

Under the new draft, businesses would require to conduct data protection impact assessments, consult the relevant supervisory authority body, implement appropriate security measures, provide information to end-users about data processing activities and the right to object to such data processing, and to not share metadata or information collected through the use of cookies or similar technologies with third parties, unless it has been anonymized.

In March 2020, the current presidency invited all delegations to provide their final comments on the proposed draft, so that negotiations with the European Parliament can begin as soon as possible. Should the ePR be finally approved, it will finalize the European Union’s framework regarding the protection of data and the confidentiality of electronic communications.

Source: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/proposal-regulation-privacy-and-electronic-communications

The European Patent Office – Patent Index 2019

By José Santacroce. Partner and Head of Patent Department

Patent Index 2019

The European Patent Office (EPO) just published its Patent Index 2019, below a summary of the key statistics.

The EPO received last year a record 181 000 patent applications, 4% more than in 2018.

In total, nearly half of all patent applications came from companies based in Europe, with Germany alone accounting for some 15%. From the other regions, US firms dominated with a quarter of all applications, followed by companies from Japan, China and South Korea.

Origin of patent applications in 2019

In terms of growth, patent applications filed by European companies increased modestly. There was a strong rise in demand from the US. The steepest growth rates were posted by Asian companies, in particular Chinese and South Korean firms.

Top 10 applicants at the EPO in 2019

• 1.HUAWEI 3 524

• 2.SAMSUNG 2 858

• 3.LG 2 817

• 4.UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 2 813

• 5.SIEMENS 2 619

• 6.QUALCOMM 1 668

• 7.ERICSSON 1 616

• 8.ROYAL PHILIPS 1 542

• 9.SONY 1 512

• 10.ROBERT BOSCH 1 498

Top 10 countries for patent applications at the EPO in 2019

Among European countries with large volumes, the greatest increases in filings came from Sweden, the UK, and Switzerland. Filings from Germany remained stable and Italy saw moderate growth, while France and the Netherlands saw decreases.

Looking at countries with mid-range patenting volumes, Spain saw the biggest rise in applications. There were also increases in filings from Belgium and Austria.

Further significant growth was seen from companies in Portugal, Ireland, and Norway, albeit from small overall patenting volumes.

The patent applications filed with the EPO in 2019 also indicate Europe’s position as a key market for the next wave of digital transformation technologies.

Technical fields with most patent applications in 2019

Digital communication: The new top technology field at the EPO

Digital communication was the new top technology field at the EPO, reflecting the rapid development of 5G technologies.

China, the US, and Europe were the most active regions of origin. They each account for roughly a quarter of the patent applications in this field.

Computer technology: The second fastest-growing field

It was fuelled by the growing importance of Artificial Intelligence. Patent applications concerned especially machine learning, data retrieval, image data processing, and pattern recognition. Overall, US companies led this field, with European applicants not far behind.

The dominant position of digital technologies was clearly reflected in the list of leading applicants. Huawei topped the table, followed by Samsung, LG, United Technologies and Siemens.

Overall, European companies retained the largest share in seven of the ten most active technology fields. These include transport, where Europe continued to excel in the automotive sector. The same was also true for clean energy technologies.

Source: www.epo.org

Let The Data Be Free!

By Manuel Lobato. Patents Lawyer.

Regulation for the Free Flow of non-personal data

On May 28^th, 2019, the Regulation for the Free Flow of non-personal data in the European Union- (EU) 2018 / 1807- entered into force in the territory of the European Community, accompanied by a Guide dedicated to the same theme.

The main objective of said regulation is to grant a regulatory framework to the free movement of data and its processing, as well as to complement the Regulation on the Protection of personal data. Its ultimate purpose is to break down the barriers imposed by the UE States to the treatment and storage thereof and tend to the development of the data economy in and between the countries of the Union.

The regulation in comment deals with the figures related to big data, the implementation of self-regulation codes of companies and entities of all kinds in terms of data, the use of data under the principles of responsibility, seriousness, effectiveness, accessibility, and solidarity among the agents involved in the process, the free mobility of non-personal information, eliminating territorial and/or legal and/or contractual obstacles.

Acces to the data

The access to the data and its free flow in these documents is presented with a hint of fundamental Human Law, allowing endless activities, ranging from the request for information to know in what part of a given territory the price of gasoline is cheaper – consumer rights – until the free exchange of scientific data between public entities, universities, and individuals.

Free flow of information

However, it is noteworthy that the so-called free flow of information has its limits, which are mainly in matters related to public safety, public order and national defense or when a fundamental right is currently or imminently injured.

Mixed data

Likewise, and focusing on the relationship between the Free Flow Regulation and the Protection of Personal Data, it should be noted that these interact between each other when the “mixed data” is treated. Mixed data are those that are made up of personal and non-personal information. In the event that there is a set of mixed data that are undeniably linked, the Free Flow Regulation will prevail over that of Protection, as prescribed by art. 2.2 of the indicated document.

Finally, and as regards the scope of application of the aforementioned instrument, it is of a cross-border nature, and its provisions must be accepted and appropriate to the standards prescribed by it, even when the data processing service provider of countries from the Union, is established there or not. -art. 2, ap. 1 a) –

Sources: ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_3190, ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_2749

The European Patent Office (EPO) Publishes Grounds for its Decision to Refuse Two Patent Applications Naming a Machine as Inventor

By José Santacroce. Partner and Head of Patent Department.

EPO – Applications refused

The EPO has published on 27 January 2020 its decision setting out the reasons for its recent refusal of two European patent applications in which an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system was designated as the inventor.

Filed by an individual in autumn 2018, the applications EP 18 275 163 and EP 18 275 174 were refused by the EPO following oral proceedings with the applicant in November 2019, on the grounds that they do not meet the legal requirement of the European Patent Convention (EPC) that an inventor designated in the application has to be a human being, and not a machine.

The machine called “DABUS”

In both applications, the machine called “DABUS”, which is described as “a type of connectionist artificial intelligence”, is named as the inventor. The applicant stated that he had acquired the right to the European patent from the inventor by being its successor in title, arguing that as the machine’s owner, he was assigned any intellectual property rights created by this machine.

In its decisions, the EPO considered that the interpretation of the legal framework of the European patent system leads to the conclusion that the inventor designated in a European patent must be a natural person. The Office further noted that the understanding of the term inventor as referring to a natural person appears to be an internationally applicable standard and that various national courts have issued decisions to this effect.

Moreover, the designation of an inventor is mandatory as it bears a series of legal consequences, notably to ensure that the designated inventor is the legitimate one and that he or she can benefit from rights linked to this status. To exercise these rights, the inventor must have a legal personality that AI systems or machines do not enjoy.

Finally, giving a name to a machine is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the EPC mentioned above.

The decisions to refuse the two patent applications can be appealed by the applicant within two months at the EPO’s independent judiciary, the Boards of Appeal.

Source: www.epo.org

The European Patent Office (EPO) Officially revoke the Broad Institute´s CRISPR patent

By José Santacroce. Partner and Head of Patent Department.

European patent EP 2771468

European patent EP 2771468 relates to the CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology held by the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Massachusetts.

The EPO opposition division had revoked the patent for lack of novelty in view of intermediate prior art. This prior art became relevant because the opposition division did not acknowledge the patentee’s claim to priority from a US provisional application naming more applicants than the subsequent PCT application from which EP 2771468 is derived. Since the omitted applicant had not transferred his rights to the applicants of the PCT application the priority claim was considered invalid.

On 16 January 2020, the EPO Board of Appeal in case T 844/18 dismissed the patent proprietor’s appeal against the decision of the opposition division and thus confirmed the revocation of the patent. The board did not refer questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

Reasons for revocation

The reasons for the board’s decision will be issued in writing in due course.

In 2012, Professor Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley and Professor Emmanuelle Charpentier were the first to file a patent for the discovery of CRISPR/Cas9. Subsequently, Professor Feng Zhang at the Broad Institute was granted a fast-tracked patent based on the use of CRISPR to edit the genomes of eukaryotic cells. Since then, both institutions have competed for numerous patents with overlapping rights across multiple jurisdictions.

The Broad’s EPO patent was originally granted based on evidence of their original US patent filings. However the Broad’s earliest US applications, filed in 2012, listed Professor Luciano Marraffini of Rockefeller University, New York, as one of the inventors, but subsequent Broad applications, in the US and Europe do not include him. Because the list of inventors is not the same, the EPO declared the early US filings are not valid evidence that their claim dates back to 2012, and as such cannot be used to show the Broad’s claim predates that of competitors, including UC Berkeley.

The Broad has said that nine of their 21 CRISPR/Cas9 patents in Europe could be affected by the ruling which “does not involve the actual scientific merits of the patent application, but the interpretation of rules that dictate what happens when the names of inventors differ across international applications.”.

Source: epo.org

EPO and Cambodia Renew Bilateral Cooperation

By José Santacroce. Partner and Head of Patent Department.

A delegation from Cambodia visits the EPO

Source: www.epo.org

Brazilian PTO and EPO Launch Technical and Strategic Patent Partnership

By Carlos Cavalcanti. Lawyer, Managing Partner at Moeller IP Brazil.

Agreement between Brazil and Europe

Memorandum of Understanding – Enhanced Technical and Strategic Partnership

Brazilian PTO and the European Patent Office (EPO) signed a Memorandum of Understanding on an Enhanced Technical and Strategic Partnership on Tuesday, November 26th, aiming to improve cooperation between Brazil and Europe in the area of patents. The agreement was signed by BrPTO President Claudio Vilar Furtado and EPO President Antonio Campinos at the Institute’s headquarters in Rio de Janeiro.

BrPTO’s president Claudio Vilar Furtado stressed the importance of the agreement to stimulate investment in innovation and industrial property, focusing on the generation of new patents, especially in partnership.

Agreement aims

– In this agreement between BrPTO and EPO, Brazilians and Europeans are united so that patents are a central element of a business environment that drives innovation – said the president of BrPTO.

The agreement between the EPO and the largest patent office in Latin America aims to strengthen the patent system in Brazil and Europe to encourage innovation and economic development, as well as to promote trade and investment between companies. two regions.

– Brazil is an essential partner for the EPO and an important market for European companies – said EPO President Antonio Campinos, who added: – This agreement is a milestone in our cooperation and is proof of the economic importance of close ties between our regions. Cooperation aims to ensure efficient patent examination and the granting of high-quality patents. This will benefit local innovative agents and international patent applicants, who can increasingly expect similar conditions to protect their inventions around the world.

Memorandum of Understanding – Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)

During the ceremony, both offices also signed a Memorandum of Understanding to renew their Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program. The new PPH, effective December 1st, will be open to patent applications in all technology fields.

In relation to the enhanced technical and strategic partnership agreement, BrPTO and EPO will cooperate in strengthening local capacity to search and analyze patent applications by training and discussing best practices, sharing tools and exchanging databases. patent data. In addition, by examining patent applications corresponding to applications already processed by the EPO, BrPTO will leverage the search reports in its own review process to further enhance quality and efficiency, freeing up resources to support local innovation. The agreement’s activities will be based on the two-year work plan agreed between the two institutions.

Brazil is the largest economy in Latin America and its trade with Europe accounts for over one third of the total European Union (EU) trade with the region. The EU is also the largest foreign investor in Brazil, with investments in various sectors of the Brazilian economy.

Source: http://www.inpi.gov.br/noticias/inpi-e-epo-lancam-parceria-tecnica-e-estrategica-na-area-de-patentes/view