Strategies for Successfully Mastering the Different Challenges of the IP Systems in the BRIC Countries and U.S. in the Pharmaceutical and Life Sciences Sectors

In conjunction with the 2015 BIO International Convention, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP is excited to be sponsoring a panel discussion on Sunday, June 14, 2015 on “Strategies for Successfully Mastering the Different Challenges of the IP Systems in the BRIC Countries and U.S. in the Pharmaceutical and Life Sciences Sectors.”  I will be presenting with four attorneys from around the globe, for a discussion including informative insight and advice for successfully navigating through some of the challenges associated with the intellectual property systems in these countries and useful strategies for maximizing intellectual property protection. Panelists include:

Otto Licks – Licks Legal, Brazil

Vlad Ugryumov, Gowlings, Moscow, Russia

Tarun Gandhi, Chadha & Chadha, India

Oliver Lutze, Spruson & Ferguson, Shanghai, China

Lisa Mueller, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Moderator:  Verena Simpson, Guardian IP Consulting, Copenhagen, Denmark

The presentation will be at the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown from 3:30-5:00 pm with a cocktail reception to follow at 5:00 pm.  There is no cost for attending.  For more information and to register, please click here.

I am excited about this panel and look forward to seeing readers from the BRIC Wall Blog there!

Third Party Observations in China – Part 7 of an 8 Part Series

This is Part 7 of an 8-part series examining post-grant review proceedings, oppositions, and third party observations in the U.S., BRIC and several non-BRIC countries. To see Part 1, Post-Grant Oppositions in Japan, click here. To see Part 2, Third Party Submissions in Russia, click here. To see Part 3, Pre- and Post-Grant Oppositions in India, click here; To see Part 4, Third Party Submissions in the U.S., click here. To see Part 5, Third Party Submissions in Europe, click here. To see Part 6, Third Party Submissions in Brazil, click here.

Public Observations

Rule 48 of the Implementing Regulations of Chinese Patent Law provides that any person may, from the date of publication of an application for invention until the date announcing the grant of the patent right, submit observations to the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO). Such third party submissions are referred to as “public observations”. Observations can be submitted by any person in its own name or anonymously (such as through a straw man).

Observations can be submitted for invention patents but not for utility model patents.   Any ground of rejection of a patent application can form the basis of an observation. Such grounds can include lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure, lack of unity, lack of clarity, ineligible subject matter, double patenting, etc.

SIPO has an official form that allows a third party to submit arguments forming the basis of the observations. This form can be submitted electronically, if desired. If a third party wishes to submit documentary evidence (such as evidence of patents, published applications, non-patent literature, etc.) supporting the observations, then the observations and accompanying evidence should be scanned in and submitted electronically. If any evidence is in a language other than Chinese or English, it is recommended that a Chinese translation be provided. There is no official fee for filing observations.

It is recommended that a third party submit observations as early in prosecution as possible (such as prior to issuance of an Office Action) to allow the Examiner sufficient time to consider the observations. A claim chart comparing the features of the claims with the prior art can be submitted to facilitate the Examiner’s understanding of the arguments submitted in the observations.

According to SIPO’s Guidelines for Patent Examination, the public will not be notified of the handling of any observations submitted. In fact, Examiners have discretion to consider observations once received. It is not known what criteria Examiner’s use to determine whether or not to consider observations once received. Additionally, SIPO does not provide any information on the effectiveness or success rate of such observations.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Feynman Z. Liang of the Jiaquan IP Law Firm