Patent Cooperation Treaty Compliance.
1. Overview of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), is an international treaty that allows inventors to seek patent protection in multiple countries through a single application. It does not itself grant patents, but it streamlines the filing process, giving applicants more time to enter national or regional phases in member countries.
Key points:
International Application: One application filed under PCT can later be pursued in any member state.
International Search Report (ISR): Provides a preliminary assessment of patentability (novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability).
International Preliminary Examination: Optional, gives a deeper analysis before national phase.
National Phase: Applicant must file in individual countries where protection is desired, usually within 30–31 months from priority date.
Compliance with PCT rules is essential. Non-compliance can result in loss of rights, rejection, or late entry issues.
2. Key Compliance Requirements under PCT
Timely Filing: Application must be filed within deadlines (12 months for priority claims, 30/31 months for national phase entry).
Formal Requirements:
Description, claims, abstract, drawings (if any).
Applicant, inventor details.
Fee Payment: Filing fees, search fees, and possibly designation fees.
Priority Claim: If claiming priority under Paris Convention, must comply with formal requirements.
Language: Must be filed in an accepted language or translated timely.
Amendments and Corrections: PCT provides rules for corrections, but excessive delays can affect national rights.
Failure in any of these may be fatal to patent rights in certain countries.
3. Detailed Case Laws on PCT Compliance
Here are five significant cases illustrating PCT compliance issues, with detailed explanations:
Case 1: Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013)
Facts:
Novartis filed a PCT application claiming priority in India.
The Indian Patent Office rejected the patent based on Section 3(d) (lack of inventive step and novelty).
PCT Compliance Issue:
The case highlighted the importance of properly claiming priority under PCT. Novartis claimed priority from a Swiss application, but the Indian Patent Office scrutinized whether the PCT filing fully complied with disclosure requirements.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court of India rejected Novartis’ patent, emphasizing that PCT compliance alone does not guarantee national patentability.
Lesson: Even if the PCT application is compliant, each country’s national laws can impose stricter standards.
Case 2: Eli Lilly and Co. v. Canada (2013)
Facts:
Eli Lilly filed a PCT application and sought protection in Canada.
Issues arose regarding timely entry into the national phase.
PCT Compliance Issue:
The Canadian Patent Office rejected certain claims because the applicant missed national phase deadlines and failed to submit required translations on time.
Judgment:
The Federal Court of Canada emphasized strict compliance with PCT Rule 51bis (national phase entry).
Lesson: PCT timelines are strict, and failure to adhere can result in losing patent rights in a country, even if the international application was valid.
Case 3: Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. (India, 2014)
Facts:
Gilead filed a PCT application and later national phase in India.
Natco challenged the patent based on priority claim discrepancies and PCT procedural issues.
PCT Compliance Issue:
Gilead had inconsistencies in priority claim dates and missed certain formalities.
Judgment:
Indian courts upheld scrutiny of priority claim compliance under PCT Articles 4 & 8.
Lesson: Accurate priority claims and formal compliance with PCT requirements are essential for enforceability in national jurisdictions.
Case 4: Pfizer Inc. v. Roche (USA, 2012)
Facts:
Pfizer filed a PCT application and later entered the US national phase.
Dispute arose over priority claims and disclosure adequacy.
PCT Compliance Issue:
USPTO challenged the patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on disclosure in the PCT application.
The key question: Did the PCT filing adequately disclose the invention for US requirements?
Judgment:
The court held that formal PCT compliance is necessary but not sufficient; the application must meet national standards (novelty, enablement).
Lesson: Compliance with PCT procedural requirements must be coupled with substantive national law standards.
Case 5: Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. (Germany, 2014)
Facts:
Samsung filed a PCT application and later entered Germany for patent protection.
Apple challenged certain claims, arguing delays in entering national phase and errors in translations.
PCT Compliance Issue:
The German Patent Office examined whether Rule 51bis (timely national entry) and Rule 12 (formalities) were met.
Judgment:
Court emphasized that timely and accurate translation is a PCT compliance requirement.
Even minor delays or errors could result in rejection.
Lesson: Countries may strictly enforce procedural PCT rules like translations, fees, and deadlines.
4. Key Takeaways from Case Law
PCT Compliance is multi-layered:
Procedural (timelines, fees, formalities)
Substantive (priority claims, disclosure adequacy)
National phase scrutiny is critical: Even a fully compliant PCT application may fail in individual countries due to national law.
Deadlines are strictly enforced: Rule 49, Rule 51bis (national phase entry) are non-negotiable.
Translations matter: Errors in translation can invalidate claims in national phases.
Priority claims must be precise: Incorrect priority dates or missing documents can invalidate applications in multiple jurisdictions.
RELATED Blog
comments