Advertisement

May 23, 2013

If You File Patent Applications in Multiple Countries, Such as in the U.S., Japan, Korea, and the EPO and Want to Accelerate Examination, the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Can Be a Useful Tool.

Staas & Halsey LLP

 

The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) can accelerate the examination of a patent application in a second national patent office (Office of Second Filing or OSF) if examination work has been completed in another national patent office (Office of First Filing or OFF). A number of bilateral agreements now exist between various patent offices to take advantage of workload sharing, such as the USPTO, JPO, KIPO, UK-IPO, EPO, CIPO (Canadian), IPAU (Australian), DKPTO (Danish), IPOS (Singaporean), PRH (Finnish) and DPMA (German).
 
The PPH takes advantage of the work done by the OFF when examining a corresponding application in the OSF. If at least one claim is found to be allowable in the OFF and examination has not begun in the OSF, then accelerated examination can be requested in the OSF. The PPH permits each participating patent office to build upon the work previously done by the other patent office. By promoting workload sharing between the patent offices, duplicate work can be reduced, resulting in a more efficient examination of patent applications.
 
For example, the PPH program has been operating between the USPTO and the JPO since July 3, 2006 and over the past couple of years has shown a tremendous ability to increase efficiency in the OSF. USPTO statistics thus far have shown that applications in which the JPO was the OFF and the USPTO was the OSF were allowed about 95% of the time in the USPTO, as compared to the non-PPH allowance rate of about 45% in 2008. Furthermore, the statistics have shown that applications filed in the USPTO as the OSF are disposed of in an average of 1.7 actions, as compared to an average of 2.8 actions for non-PPH applications. Also, the statistics have shown that the average time between the filing of a PPH request in the USPTO and receiving a Notice of Allowance is 150 days, as compared to the non-PPH average time of about 32.2 months in 2008. The JPO has also reported benefits of filing PPH applications. When the JPO is the OSF, recent statistics have shown that these applications have a 70% allowance rate and that the average number of days for allowance of a PPH request in Japan is 90.
 
The criteria for successfully obtaining a grant of a PPH request in the USPTO for an application can become complex and strict. Some of the requirements include a requirement that the PPH request must be filed before examination has begun, a requirement that claims in the U.S. application must be amended to sufficiently correspond to the allowed claims in the OFF, and a requirement of English translations of the claims and the latest office action in the OFF and statements that the English translations are accurate. If the PPH request is defective, the USPTO only permits a single opportunity to correct the defect, otherwise the U.S. application will be examined in due course.
 
Mr. Aaron Walker is a patent attorney at the Washington, D.C. law firm of Staas & Halsey LLP. The firm has concentrated exclusively in intellectual property law for over 39 years. Additional information is available at www.staasandhalsey.com, via email at info@s-n-h.com, or via telephone at 202.434.1500.

Copyright © 2012 STAAS & HALSEY, LLP.

About the Author

Limited to matters and proceedings before federal courts and agencies, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Aaron C. Walker was born in St. Louis, Missouri.  He received a Bachelor of Science in General Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1999, where he was a member of Gamma Epsilon, the Engineering Honor Society for the Department of General Engineering.  He received a Juris Doctor from the William H. Bowen School of Law at the University of Arkansas-Little Rock in 2003, where he received top grade...

202-434-1500

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.