Legal twist of article 5
Recently important court decisions in first and in second instance have been made public.
Patent application No. P97 01 001003, in the name of Société Conseils de Recherches et d’Applications (SCRAS) was filed under the provisions of Art. 5 and has been rejected by the Argentine PTO.
This is the first time a patent applicant appeals the PTO decision of a patent application filed under these conditions.
The judge who ruled in first instance stated that the PTO had to grant the application.
Consequently, the Argentine PTO appealed this decision and a few weeks ago the Chamber of Appeals stated the following:
The case must be analyzed under the light of Art. 2, 7 and 27 of TRIP’s, Art. 11 of the Paris Convention and Art. 4 and 5 of the Argentine Patent Act 24481 and its regulation.
The Chamber of Appeals decided that the decision of the Argentine PTO rejecting the patent application on the basis of lack of novelty is correct and confirmed the rejection.
This case settles the first jurisprudence in relation to the correct interpretation and application of art. 5 of Patent Act 24481.