Intellectual Property ADVISORY November 4, 2008 The USPTO Amends PCT Rules to Permit Restoration of the Right of Priority for International Applications Filed Outside the Priority Period Introduction In general, an international application cannot claim priority to a previously filed U.S. application (provisional or non-provisional) unless the international application is filed within a year of the filing date of the U.S. application (i.e., the priority period). Recent amendments to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) rules, however, provide an opportunity to restore priority for an international application (i.e., PCT application) filed outside the priority period, if the international application is filed within two months after expiration of the priority period and certain requirements are met. That is, the PCT rules have been amended to provide for the restoration of priority when an international application is filed up to two months after the end of the normal 12-month priority period. Formally, these amendments do not provide an extension of the priority period. However, they have the same practical effect, wherein the maximum extension allowed for the priority period is two months. This advisory provides an overview of these amendments to the PCT rules and discusses the extent to which the United States and other PCT member countries have implemented these rules. In addition, this advisory sets forth a few of the practical effects of the implementation of these rules for U.S. applicants. Background Previously, if a PCT applicant did not file a PCT application within twelve months of the filing date of the application to which the PCT application claims priority, the PCT application would not be able to claim priority to the earlier filed application. However, recent amendments have been made to the PCT rules that would allow applicants to request that the right to claim priority be restored in applications that were filed within two months after the expiration of the priority period (i.e., twelve months) and meet certain requirements (e.g., the delay occurred in spite of due care and/or the delay was unintentional). The PCT rules that have been amended include Rule 26bis.3 and Rule 49ter, which are discussed in detail below. This advisory is published by Alston & Bird LLP to provide a summary of significant developments to our clients and friends. It is intended to be informational and does not constitute legal advice regarding any specific situation. This material may also be considered attorney advertising under court rules of certain jurisdictions. -1-
In summary, the United States has implemented Rule 26bis.3 in 37 C.F.R. 1.452 and MPEP 1828.01, but it has taken a reservation to (i.e., is not currently implementing) Rule 49ter (see MPEP 1803) because it is incompatible with current U.S. law (see 35 U.S.C. 119, 120 and 365). Accordingly, a PCT applicant can file a request with the US/RO to restore priority for a PCT application if the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.452(b) are met. However, if a PCT applicant files with the USPTO a national phase application for which priority was restored under Rule 26bis.3, the USPTO will not recognize the filing date of the priority application as the effective filing date. In addition, although applicants entering the national phase in the United States will not be able to claim priority to the priority application under Rule 49ter, the priority date will continue to govern all PCT time limits, such as the 30-month deadline for entry into national phase. Implementation of PCT Rule 26bis.3 The U.S. has implemented PCT Rule 26bis.3 in 37 C.F.R. 1.452 and MPEP 1828.01, and set the criterion for restoration of the priority to be unintentional. In particular, 37 C.F.R. 1.452(b) requires that a request for restoration of the right of priority be filed within two months from the date of expiration of the priority period (i.e., 12 months following the filing date of the priority application). In addition, the request must be accompanied by (1) the requisite fee under 37 C.F.R. 1.17(t) (currently $1,410); (2) a notice under PCT Rule 26bis.1(a) adding the priority claim, if it is not contained in the international application; and (3) a statement that the delay in filing the international application within the priority period was unintentional. For example, if a PCT applicant files an international application with the US/RO 13 months after the filing date of the priority application, the PCT applicant can request the US/RO to restore the right of priority of the PCT application to the earlier filed priority application by filing a request for restoration of priority under 37 C.F.R. 1.452(a); the $1,410 fee; a notice under PCT Rule 26bis.1(a) adding the priority claim, if it is not contained in the international application; and a statement that the delay in filing the PCT application within the priority period was unintentional. 37 C.F.R. 1.452 and MPEP 1828.01 further note that the Director may require additional information, if there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. In addition, if the applicant makes a request for early publication under PCT Article 21(2)(b) and the technical preparations for international publication have been completed by the International Bureau before the items required to be submitted for the request for restoration are filed, the items will be considered as not having been submitted in time for publication. Further, if an applicant intends to enter the national phase in a country that under Rule 49ter.2(a) requires the in spite of due care standard (which is generally recognized as being more stringent than the unintentional standard) for restoration of priority, the applicant should consider filing the PCT application directly with the International Bureau Receiving Office (IB/RO) or another receiving office that uses the in spite of due care standard. According to MPEP 1828.01, the International Bureau has indicated that it intends to decide these matters under both the in spite of due care and unintentional standards. Therefore, in view of the fact that the USPTO only decides these matters under the unintentional standard, applicants may wish to consider filing -2-
directly with the International Bureau as receiving Office instead of the United States Receiving Office in the situation where applicant desires to request restoration of the right of priority under the in spite of due care standards. However, U.S. applicants should note that, if they wish to file directly with the IB/RO, the applicants must have a foreign filing license. Implementation of PCT Rule 49ter The United States has taken a reservation to Rule 49ter because it is incompatible with U.S. law (see 35 U.S.C. 119, 120 and 365). Thus, if an applicant files a national phase application with the USPTO that is based on a PCT application for which priority was restored under Rule 26bis.3 (i.e., the PCT application was filed within two months after the expiration of the priority period and the delay was unintentional and/or resulted in spite of due care), the USPTO will not recognize the filing date of the priority application as the effective filing date. Applicants should note, however, that although applicants entering the national phase in the United States will not be able to claim priority to the priority application under Rule 49ter, the priority date will continue to govern all PCT time limits, such as the 30-month deadline for entry into the national phase. Implementation of Amended PCT Rules by Other Countries Other countries that have taken a reservation for PCT Rule 26bis.3 and/or PCT Rule 49ter, as of October 1, 2008, are listed at http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/reservations/res_incomp.pdf. Considerations for Applicants Until the United States implements PCT Rule 49ter, the filing date of a U.S. national stage application for which priority was restored under PCT Rule 26bis.3 would be the actual U.S. filing date. See 35 U.S.C. 119. Accordingly, U.S. national stage applicants relying on PCT Rule 26bis.3 to restore priority for their PCT applications must be careful to avoid activities that would bar patentability under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) or 102(d). For example, the claims of such a U.S. national stage application would be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) by the corresponding PCT or foreign application if the PCT or foreign application is published prior to 18 months after the priority filing date and the U.S. national stage application is filed more than a year after publication. PCT applications are typically published 18 months after the filing date of the priority application, and the national phase entry deadline is 30 months after the filing date of the priority application, 1 resulting in a gap of 12 months or less between PCT publication and national phase entry. However, if an applicant requests early publication of the PCT application, or the foreign application is published less than 18 months after the priority filing 1 Under 37 C.F.R. 1.465(b), the priority date for the purposes of computing any non-expired PCT time limits (e.g., publication, national phase entry) is the filing date of the earliest priority claim of the PCT application, regardless of whether the priority claim is valid. -3-
date, the applicant should file the U.S. national stage application within one year of the publication of the PCT or foreign application. Similarly, the claims of such a U.S. national stage application would be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), if the claimed invention had been in public use or on sale in the United States more than one year prior to the U.S. filing date. Thus, if an applicant plans to disclose publicly, sell or offer for sale the claimed invention in the United States prior to filing the U.S. national stage application, the applicant should file the U.S. national stage application within one year of the public disclosure, sale or offer for sale. In addition, the claims of such a U.S. national stage application would be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(d), if the corresponding foreign application is patented prior to the U.S. filing date. Conclusion Even with the amended PCT rules, an applicant should use its best efforts to file an international application within the priority period to avoid potential issues that may arise from using the two month extension for restoring priority. Furthermore, when utilizing the rules for restoring priority, an applicant should be aware of the countries that have taken reservations for PCT Rule 26bis.3 and/or PCT Rule 49ter, as the list of countries continues to change. Finally, an applicant should be aware of the criteria (i.e., in spite of due care standard or unintentional standard) for restoring priority in the designated states in which it plans to enter, and the applicant should accordingly file the PCT application with a receiving office restoring priority under the same or higher standard. -4-
If you would like to receive future Intellectual Property Advisories electronically, please forward your contact information including e-mail address to ip.advisory@alston.com. Be sure to put subscribe in the subject line. If you have any questions or would like additional information please contact your Alston & Bird attorney or any of the following: Blas P. Arroyo blas.arroyo@alston.com 704.444.1012 Richard D. Emery, Ph.D. ric.emery@alston.com 704.444.1108 Angela Payne James angela.james@alston.com 404.881.7449 Thomas J. Parker thomas.parker@alston.com 212.210.9529 ATLANTA One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 404.881.7000 William M. Atkinson william.atkinson@alston.com 704.444.1026 William H. Baker bill.baker@alston.com 212.210.9487 Martha Gayle Barber matha.barber@alston.com 704.444.1018 Alan Behr alan.behr@alston.com 212.210.9479 Scott E. Brient scott.brient@alston.com 404.881.7728 Philippe Bennett philippe.bennett@alston.com 212.210.9559 Kirk T. Bradley kirk.bradley@alston.com 704.444.1030 Keith E. Broyles keith.broyles@alston.com 404.881.7558 Michael S. Connor mike.connor@alston.com 704.444.1022 Jason W. Cook jason.cook@alston.com 214.922.3407 Edward R. Ergenzinger, Jr., Ph.D. ed.ergenzinger@alston.com 919.862.2311 Patrick J. Flinn patrick.flinn@alston.com 404.881.7920 Joey H. Foxhall joey.foxhall@alston.com 704.444.1058 Christopher J. Gegg chris.gegg@alston.com 704.444.1024 Jonathan M. Gordon jonathan.gordon@alston.com 213.576.1165 Guy R. Gosnell guy.gosnell@alston.com 704.444.1029 Gregory T. Gronholm greg.gronholm@alston.com 404.881.7968 Robert E. Hanlon robert.hanlon@alston.com 212.210.9410 John D. Haynes john.haynes@alston.com 404.881.7737 Steven D. Hemminger 650.838.2029 steve.hemminger@alston.com Madison C. Jellins madison.jellins@alston.com 650.838.2047 Larry C. Jones larry.jones@alston.com 704.444.1019 Jon M. Jurgovan jon.jurgovan@alston.com 404.881.4583 Louis A. Karasik lou.karasik@alston.com 213.576.1148 Lance A. Lawson lance.lawson@alston.com 704.444.1114 Robert L. Lee bob.lee@alston.com 404.881.7635 Raymond O. Linker, Jr. ron.linker@alston.com 704.444.1010 Kevin R. Lyn kevin.lyn@alston.com 919.862.2287 Todd McClelland todd.mcclelland@alston.com 404.881.4789 Michael D. McCoy mike.mccoy@alston.com 704.444.1011 Bruce J. Rose bruce.rose@alston.com 704.444.1036 Walter Scott walter.scott@alston.com 212.210.9518 Benjamin F. Sidbury ben.sidbury@alston.com 704.444.1056 Frank G. Smith frank.smith@alston.com 404.881.7240 Jason M. Sneed jason.sneed@alston.com 704.444.1048 Andrew T. Spence andy.spence@alston.com 704.444.1411 W. Murray Spruill, Ph.D. murray.spruill@alston.com 919.862.2202 David J. Stewart david.stewart@alston.com 404.881.7952 George M. Taulbee george.taulbee@alston.com 704.444.1023 David Teske david.teske@alston.com 404.881.7935 CHARLOTTE Bank of America Plaza Suite 4000 101 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 704.444.1000 DALLAS Chase Tower Suite 3601 2200 Ross Avenue Dallas TX 75201 214.922.3400 LOS ANGELES 333 South Hope Street 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3004 213.576.1000 NEW YORK 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016-1387 212.210.9400 RESEARCH TRIANGLE Suite 600 3201 Beechleaf Court Raleigh, NC 27604-1062 919.862.2200 SILICON VALLEY Two Palo Alto Square Suite 400 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 650.838.2000 Jason P. Cooper jason.cooper@alston.com 704.444.1031 Sean P. DeBruine sean.debruine@alston.com 650.838.2121 Martin J. Elgison martin.elgison@alston.com 404.881.7167 J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D. patrick.elsevier@alston.com 404.881.7683 Donald M. Hill, Jr. donald.hill@alston.com 704.444.1006 Yitai Hu 650.838.2020 yitai.hu@alston.com Christopher M. Humphrey chris.humphrey@alston.com 919.862. 2213 Richard M. McDermott rick.mcdermott@alston.com 704.444.1045 Robin L. McGrath robin.mcgrath@alston.com 404.881.7923 Michael J. Newton mike.newton@alston.com 214.922.3423 Kevin C. Trock kevin.trock@alston.com 650.838.2004 Alan L. Whitehurst alan.whitehurst@alston.com 202.756.3491 Jeffrey E. Young jeff.young@alston.com 404.881.7857 VENTURA COUNTY Suite 215 2801 Townsgate Road Westlake Village, CA 91361 805.497.9474 WASHINGTON, D.C. The Atlantic Building 950 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1404 202.756.3300 www.alston.com Alston & Bird llp 2008