Tuesday 27 January 2015

PARIS CONVENTION





The Paris Convention, signed in 1883 was one of the first IP treaties and now has over 170 signatory countries of which the US is one. The fundamental benefit of this treaty is that the filing date of a patent application filed in any one of the convention countries can serve as the priority date for patent applications filed within one year in any other member country. There are other treaties with similar reciprocal priority rights. The US, for example, has one with Taiwan.

The Paris Convention
As we discussed, the Paris Convention is an international treaty that allows applicants to file a first application in their home country. That application is referred to as a priority document or filing, and the date it is filed is called the priority date.
The priority filing starts a 12-month period within which a further application called a Paris Convention application (or a direct application claiming priority) can be filed elsewhere, claiming Paris Convention priority back to the priority date. To the extent that the content of the Paris Convention application is disclosed in the earlier priority document, it will be backdated to the priority date.
The advantages of using the Paris Convention are well known to those familiar with the patent process. The 12-month convention period lets the applicant seek funding, perform market research and turn an idea into a commercial product. All of these can be done following a single filing without risking a loss of rights in other countries.
If the Paris Convention didn’t exist, applicants would need to coordinate simultaneous filing in all countries that are of potential interest at the very start of the process. This would be complicated and costly, bearing in mind the need for translations in many countries.
- See more at: http://info.inovia.com/2013/02/the-paris-convention-versus-the-pct/#sthash.AtieuxW4.dpuf
 
The Paris Convention
As we discussed, the Paris Convention is an international treaty that allows applicants to file a first application in their home country. That application is referred to as a priority document or filing, and the date it is filed is called the priority date.
The priority filing starts a 12-month period within which a further application called a Paris Convention application (or a direct application claiming priority) can be filed elsewhere, claiming Paris Convention priority back to the priority date. To the extent that the content of the Paris Convention application is disclosed in the earlier priority document, it will be backdated to the priority date.
The advantages of using the Paris Convention are well known to those familiar with the patent process. The 12-month convention period lets the applicant seek funding, perform market research and turn an idea into a commercial product. All of these can be done following a single filing without risking a loss of rights in other countries.
If the Paris Convention didn’t exist, applicants would need to coordinate simultaneous filing in all countries that are of potential interest at the very start of the process. This would be complicated and costly, bearing in mind the need for translations in many countries.
- See more at: http://info.inovia.com/2013/02/the-paris-convention-versus-the-pct/#sthash.AtieuxW4.dpuf
The Paris Convention
As we discussed, the Paris Convention is an international treaty that allows applicants to file a first application in their home country. That application is referred to as a priority document or filing, and the date it is filed is called the priority date.
The priority filing starts a 12-month period within which a further application called a Paris Convention application (or a direct application claiming priority) can be filed elsewhere, claiming Paris Convention priority back to the priority date. To the extent that the content of the Paris Convention application is disclosed in the earlier priority document, it will be backdated to the priority date.
The advantages of using the Paris Convention are well known to those familiar with the patent process. The 12-month convention period lets the applicant seek funding, perform market research and turn an idea into a commercial product. All of these can be done following a single filing without risking a loss of rights in other countries.
If the Paris Convention didn’t exist, applicants would need to coordinate simultaneous filing in all countries that are of potential interest at the very start of the process. This would be complicated and costly, bearing in mind the need for translations in many countries.
- See more at: http://info.inovia.com/2013/02/the-paris-convention-versus-the-pct/#sthash.AtieuxW4.dpuf

The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed in Paris, France, on 20 March 1883, was one of the first intellectual property treaties. It established a Union for the protection of industrial property. The Convention is still in force as of 2014. The substantive provisions of the Convention fall into three main categories: national treatment, priority right and common rules. [1]

National treatment

According to Articles 2 and 3 of this treaty, juristic and natural persons who are either national of or domiciled in a state party to the Convention shall, as regards the protection of industrial property, enjoy in all the other countries of the Union, the advantages that their respective laws grant to nationals.
In other words, when an applicant files an application for a patent or a trademark in a foreign country member of the Union, the application receives the same treatment as if it came from a national of this foreign country. Furthermore, if the intellectual property right is granted (e.g. if the applicant becomes owners of a patent or of a registered trademark), the owner benefits from the same protection and the same legal remedy against any infringement as if the owner was a national owner of this right.

Priority right

The "Convention priority right", also called "Paris Convention priority right" or "Union priority right", was also established by Article 4 of this treaty. It provides that an applicant from one contracting State shall be able to use its first filing date (in one of the contracting State) as the effective filing date in another contracting State, provided that the applicant files a subsequent application within 6 months (for industrial designs and trademarks) or 12 months (for patents and utility models) from the first filing.

History

After a diplomatic conference in Paris in 1880, the Convention was signed in 1883 by 11 countries: Belgium, Brazil, France, Guatemala, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, El Salvador, Serbia, Spain and Switzerland. Guatemala, El Salvador and Serbia denounced and reapplied the convention via accession.[2]
The Treaty was revised at Brussels, Belgium, on 14 December 1900, at Washington, United States, on 2 June 1911, at The Hague, Netherlands, on 6 November 1925, at London, United Kingdom, on 2 June 1934, at Lisbon, Portugal, on 31 October 1958, and at Stockholm, Sweden, on 14 July 1967, and was amended on 28 September 1979.

Contracting parties


Paris Convention members (in green)
As of September 2014, the Convention has 176 contracting member countries,[3] which makes it one of the most widely adopted treaties worldwide. Notably, Taiwan and Burma are not parties to the Convention. However, according to Article 27 of its Patent Act, Taiwan recognizes priority claims from contracting members.
Contracting members include: Albania; Algeria; Andorra; Angola; Antigua and Barbuda; Argentina; Armenia; Australia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Bahamas; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belarus; Belgium; Belize; Benin; Bhutan; Bolivia; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Botswana; Brazil; Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cambodia; Cameroon; Canada; Central African Republic; Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Comoros; Congo; Costa Rica; Croatia; Cuba; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Côte d'Ivoire; Democratic People's Republic of Korea; Democratic Republic of the Congo; Denmark; Djibouti; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador; Equatorial Guinea; Estonia; Finland; France; Gabon; Gambia; Georgia; Germany; Ghana; Greece; Grenada; Guatemala; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Guyana; Haiti; Holy See; Honduras; Hungary; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Iran (Islamic Republic of); Iraq; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Jamaica; Japan; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Kuwait; Kyrgyzstan; Laos; Latvia; Lebanon; Lesotho; Liberia; Libya; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Macedonia;[4] Madagascar; Malawi; Malaysia; Mali; Malta; Mauritania; Mauritius; Mexico; Moldova; Monaco; Mongolia; Montenegro; Morocco; Mozambique; Namibia; Nepal; Netherlands; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; Norway; Oman; Pakistan; Panama; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Qatar; Republic of Korea; Romania; Russian Federation; Rwanda; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; San Marino; Sao Tome and Principe; Saudi Arabia; Senegal; Serbia; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Slovakia; Slovenia; South Africa; Spain; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Suriname; Swaziland; Sweden; Switzerland; Syrian Arab Republic; Tajikistan; Thailand; Togo; Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Tunisia; Turkey; Turkmenistan; Uganda; Ukraine; United Arab Emirates; United Kingdom; United Republic of Tanzania; United States of America; Uruguay; Uzbekistan; Venezuela; Vietnam; Yemen; Zambia; and Zimbabwe.
Former member states: Austria-Hungary (succeeded by Austria and Hungary); Czechoslovakia; Orange Free State 1899–31 May 1902; Colony of Queensland (1891–1900, after federation acceded to by Australia); Serbia and Montenegro (succeeded by Serbia); Soviet Union (succeeded by the Russian Federation); and Yugoslavia (succeeded by Serbia and Montenegro and then Serbia).

Administration

The Paris Convention is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO),[5] based in Geneva, Switzerland.[6]

References

  1. "Summary of the Paris Convention". WIPO. Retrieved 2014-12-06.
  2. "Contracting Parties to the Paris Convention". WIPO. Retrieved 2012-12-30.
  3. "Contracting Parties > Paris Convention (Total Contracting Parties : 176)". World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Retrieved 12 September 2014.
  4. Signed as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
  5. WIPO web site, WIPO-Administered Treaties. Consulted on 10 August 2007.
  6. WIPO web site, What is WIPO?. Consulted on 10 August 2007.

Further reading

External links

  
Rue de la Convention from Pont Mirabeau



paris











DRUG APPROVALS BY DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO .....FOR BLOG HOME CLICK HERE

Join me on Linkedin

View Anthony Melvin Crasto Ph.D's profile on LinkedIn

Join me on Facebook FACEBOOK
Join me on twitterFollow amcrasto on Twitter     
Join me on google plus Googleplus

 amcrasto@gmail.com






Monday 26 January 2015

Patent offices


 

AF; AX; AL; DZ; AS; AD; AO; AI; AQ; AG; AR; AM; AW; AU; AT; AZ
BS; BH; BD; BB; BY; BE; BZ; BJ; BM; BT; BO; BA; BW; BV; BR; IO; BN; BG; BF; BI; KH;  
CM; CA; CV; KY; CF; TD; CL; CN; CX; CC; CO; KM; CG; CD; CK; CR; CI; HR; CU; CY; CZ;  
DK; DJ; DM; DO;  
EC; EG; SV; GQ; ER; EE; ET;  
FK; FO; FJ; FI; FR;  
GH; PF; TF; GA; GM; GE; DE; GH; GI; GR; GL; GD; GP; GU; GT; GG; GN; GW; GY;  
HT; HM; VA; HN; HK; HU;  
IS; IN; ID; IR; IQ; IE; IM; IL; IT;  
JM; JP; JE; JO;  
KZ; KE; KI; KP; KR; KW; KG
LA; LV; LB; LS; LR; LY; LI; LT; LU;  
MO; MK; MG; MW; MY; MV; ML; MT; MH; MQ; MR; MU; YT; MX; FM; ML; MC; MN; ME; MS; MA; MZ; MM
NA; NR; NP; NL; AN; NC; NZ; NI; NE; NG; NU; NF; MP; NO;  
OM;  
PK; PW; PS; PA; PG; PY; PE; PH; PN; PL; PT; PR;  
QA;  
RE; RO; RU; RW; BL;  
SH; KN; LC; MF; PM; VC; WS; SM; ST; SA; SN; RS; SC; SL; SG; SK; SI; SB; SO; ZA; GS; ES; LK; SD; SR; SJ; SZ; SE; CH;  
TW; TJ; TZ; TH; TL; TG; TK; TO; TT; TN; TR; TM; TC; TV;  
UG; UA; AE; GB; US; UM; UY; UZ;  
VU; VE; VN; VG; VI;  
WF; EH;  
YE;  
ZM ZW


Regional Offices


WIPO; OAPI; ARIPO; ASBU; EAPO; EPO; UPOV; OHIM; GCC



Please visit
Whatever you need, wherever you go, whatever you do, this is the place you  MUST reach...
IP Australia Site
 
Irish patent office

Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks ...

www.ipindia.nic.in/
 
 
 

List of patent offices

For a list of patent offices and their websites, see the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) maintained list, here.
The entries shown in italics are regional or international patent offices.

List of past patent offices or the like

 



DRUG APPROVALS BY DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO .....FOR BLOG HOME CLICK HERE

Join me on Linkedin

View Anthony Melvin Crasto Ph.D's profile on LinkedIn

Join me on Facebook FACEBOOK
Join me on twitterFollow amcrasto on Twitter     
Join me on google plus Googleplus

 amcrasto@gmail.com


Patents - How to apply for?

 Filing a Patent Application - Road Map

On the face of it, applying for a patent it is not an easy task! Due to the facts that there are so many options to intiate a patenting procedure, it is practically impossible to make any suggestion at this stage. From another point of view, as each new patent application must have in support a certain number of novel claims, different circumstances and conditions may be asked for particular consideration in each situation.

First of all, let's summarise which are these options, then what are the main requirements that shoud be met in each case.
To apply for a patent, you must lodge a patent application with a Patent Authority either for a national patent or a multi-national patent.
Primarly, a provisional patent application can be lodged, which regularly is followed by a standard/complete patent application, a special patent application but for a limited patent (e.g. petty patent for six years - Australia or "Abzweigung" for 10 years, divisional petty patent - Germany; design patent - US; innovation - some countries members of the European Community), a regional patent application (e.g. European Patent Application), or an international PCT patent application. Some of the applicants may decide or choose to bypass the provisional patent application stage and put straightforward a full patent application in both cases domestic and/or international.
A provisional application is a new type of patent application created by the GATT legislation, which is designed to be a simple and inexpensive application that will not be examined except for certain formal requirements. The provisional application provides a method by which applicants can quickly establish an early effective filing date in a patent application and gives an inventor up to twelve months to further develop an invention, determine marketability, acquire funding or capital, seek licensing, etc. before filing a full application. A provisional application cannot mature into a patent, so a full application must be filed within twelve months of the provisional filing date to preserve the original filing date.
During this one-year period, the invention has patent pending status. This is critical since most companies will not discuss an invention with an individual until the invention is at least patent pending.
Provisional Patent Application - Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
  • relatively easy to prepare and file
  • establishes the priority date for a standard/complete patent application if this is field in term (twelve months)
  • permits further development of the invention before filing the standard/complete patent application
  • it is never-ever published/open to the public inspection (OPI), which means that does not disclose the invention state of art if the inventor/applicant, for some reasons, fails to file the standard/complete patent application
  • availability to an international-type novelty search which may be conducted by an International Searching Authority on request
  • one or more than two provisional applications can be associated to the same standard/complete patent application but in term of twelve months from the filing date of the earliest associated provisional application
  • initially it can be filed in any language but translation must be filed in due course
  • inexpensive to file
Disadvantages
  • it is not absolutely clear whether a provisional patent application may be used as the basis for making a priority claim for filing patent applications in other countries under the Paris Convention.
  • the "twelve months" term it cannot be extended rather than very special conditions must be considered
  • further inventive features developed after filing a provisional application are not disclosed until a standard/complete patent application describing those features is filed
  • if the description is not adequate, the provisional specification will not serve its function of establishing a priority date for the standard/complete patent application must be filed
A standard/complete patent application establishes the filing date and consists of the following:
  • An abstract (a brief summary of the contents of the specification)
  • A complete/fulltext specification, which has two parts:
    • a clear and complete description of the invention and its usefulness
    • a list of the claims, which set out the essential features and define the boundaries of patent protection being sought
  • Drawings - if applicable, showing all features of the invention, as defined by the claims. NOTE: A test of the specification's clarity is that it should enable anyone with average skill in the technology to make or use the invention

A divisional patent application is an application claiming priority from some previously filed patent application and known as parent application in which more than one invention was disclosed. The divisional application has claims directed to a different invention than that claimed in the parent application.
Petty Patent protection is more cheaper and easier to obtain than a standard patent, but the invention claimed is also be limited in scope and the patent life is shorter (6 years - Australia, 10 years - Germany). Technically, the petty patents are similar to standard patents in most respects, but they have a few important differences. A Petty Patent:
  • lasts for shorter time
  • is examined automatically, and is usually granted within 6 to 12 months
  • can only have one single independent claim, and no more than two dependent claims
  • the overall cost of a petty patent is usually much less than that of a standard patent application
International Patent Application
If foreign protection is sought, no matter which alternative is to be adopted, the application must be filed before the particulars are publicly disclosed and/or disclosed in a printed document or publication anywhere in the world.
There are two alternatives: to file a spearate application in each individual country or, to file one single application under the European Patent Convention and/or Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
By lodging a European patent application under the European Patent Convention, it is possible to designate any country-member under this convention and the application will be examined as a single application. If patent application is found to be acceptable, each of the designated countries will grant a national patent on the application. However, an European patent application is normally cost-effective only if more than about three or four countries are designated.
By using the PCT procedure, the inventor/applicant bigins with filing of an international application (international phase) and ends the grant of a number of national and/or regional patents (national phase).
The international phase consists of four main steps:
  1. filing the international application
  2. establishment of the International Search Report
  3. publication of the international application with the International Search Report (as soon as possible after 18 months from the priority date)
  4. establishment of an International Preliminary Examination Report (optional)
Advantages
  • more time for evaluation
  • saves effort, time, and money when protection has been sought in a number of countries
  • helps the inventor/applicant to make decisions following the international search report results before entrered into national phase with each national office of the designated countries
  • facilitates the inventor/applicant to file one application, in one place, in one language and pay one set of fees in one currency
  • reduces the formal requirements differing from one country to another to one single international standard form
  • refrains the inventor/applicant from appointing attorneny or agents in each country in which protection may be sought
  • delays considerably paying the national fees up to 20 months from the priority date or even longer (30 months) where international preliminary examination may be requested
  • covers both its member-countries and various regional patent treaties or systems
  • allows to name the European Patent Office (EPO) as one-single designated country
Disadvantages
  • slow to issue if prior art is a problem
  • permits only 8 months deferrment of examinations and payments
  • application is rejected, can no longer file in any country, although total rejection is unlikely
  • the search and examination conducted under the PCT is not binding on any national Patent Office
NOTE: The PCT provides a common application procedure which in certain circumstances may be advantageous to the inventor/applicant, but the cost of using the PCT international patent application should be carefully balanced against advantages to be obtained. Patent Application - Forms & Fees
Australia
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
EPO - European Patent Office
The European Patent Office Homepage
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
PCT & EPO - Fees (Information available on USPTO Server)
Japan
Other Hot-links





DRUG APPROVALS BY DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO .....FOR BLOG HOME CLICK HERE

Join me on Linkedin

View Anthony Melvin Crasto Ph.D's profile on LinkedIn

Join me on Facebook FACEBOOK
Join me on twitterFollow amcrasto on Twitter     
Join me on google plus Googleplus

 amcrasto@gmail.com












TRAMADOL, EP1077923


TRAMADOL
Neile A. GraysonRobert E. HalvachsEsa T. Jarvi
ApplicantMallinckrodt Inc.
      Example 2
Synthesis of Tramadol in the Presence of the Additive 1-methylimidazole

  • The Mannich reaction was run to give Mannich hydrochloride in water. This was adjusted to pH 10.8 and extracted with toluene and then dried with magnesium sulfate. A 200 mL solution containing 98 g of the Mannich base B in toluene was thus obtained.

  • To 24 g of magnesium turnings under 425 mL of dry THF was added 177 g of meta-bromoanisole at such a rate as to keep the reaction at reflux. After the addition, reflux was continued for one hour. At a temperature of 60°C, 77 g of 1-methylimidazole was added. A precipitate formed. The mixture was stirred until all of the precipitate dissolved.

    The temperature was allowed to fall to 28°C, and then the solution of Mannich base B in toluene (above) was added over 15 min, while a temperature rise to 60°C was observed. During 2 hours, the reaction mixture was stirred and allowed to cool to room temperature. The mixture was cooled to 15°C and 420 mL of 4 M ammonium chloride in water was slowly added, keeping the temperature under 30°C. To the mixture was added 350 mL of water.

    The mixture was cooled while 215 mL of concentrated hydrochloric acid was added, giving a pH of 1.0. The top, organic layer was separated and discarded. The aqueous layer was washed with 150 mL toluene and the toluene discarded. The aqueous mixture was cooled in an ice bath and taken to pH 9.5 with 355 mL of concentrated ammonium hydroxide. The mixture was extracted with 140 mL of toluene.

    The two phase mixture was filtered before separation to remove insolubles. The aqueous layer was extracted with a second 140 mL of toluene, and the toluene extracts were combined. Small amounts of toluene were added for transfer. Approximately 90 mL of toluene was distilled out to remove water. The toluene solution was assayed to show there is 106 g of a mixture of trans/cis isomers of C there, in a 90.3/9.7 ratio (HPLC).

    A simple assay of the solution is to remove solvent from a few milliliters of sample by rotary evaporation followed by drying in high vacuum. The solution can be used as such in Example 8 type experiments, or concentrated further. An additional extraction of the original aqueous layer with toluene gave 5.4 g more of the desired product.