Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/87953650/2/Cees-Mulder
Timestamp: 2015-11-25 06:50:52
Document Index: 468444384

Matched Legal Cases: ['art.6', 'art.20', 'art.3', 'art.2', 'art.3', 'art.3', 'art.3', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.6', 'art.6', 'art.27', 'art.6', 'art.6', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.62', 'art.62', 'art.1', 'art.2', 'arts1', 'arts 16', 'art.16', 'art.16', 'art.16', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.13', 'art.13', 'art.13', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.9', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.14', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.14', 'art.6', 'art.5', 'art.6', 'art.3', 'art.6', 'art.6', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.26', 'art.5', 'art.15', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.14', 'art.14', 'art.14', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.14', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.8', 'art.4', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.3', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.11', 'art.60', 'art.58', 'art.4', 'art.14', 'art.14', 'art.14', 'art.4', 'art.4', 'art.14', 'art.4', 'arts 43', 'art.8', 'art.8', 'art.14', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.11', 'art.58', 'art.11', 'art.34', 'art.11', 'art.5', 'art.5', 'art.5']

Cees Mulder for WIPO Journal - 2011 Volume 2 Issue 2
P. 1WIPO Journal - 2011 Volume 2 Issue 2WIPO Journal - 2011 Volume 2 Issue 2|Views: 120|Likes: 2Published by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)* The Juridification of Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Botswana * The Economic Effects of Geographical Indications on Developing Country Producers: A Comparison of Darjeeling and Oolong Teas * Filing date requirements under the Patent Cooperation Treaty: Alignment with the Patent Law Treaty? * IP in Global Governance: A Venture in Critical Reflection * Competition Law and IP Abuse Prevention in Australia: A Comparative Study * The Juridification of Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Botswana * The Economic Effects of Geographical Indications on Developing Country Producers: A Comparison of Darjeeling and Oolong Teas * Filing date requirements under the Patent Cooperation Treaty: Alignment with the Patent Law Treaty? * IP in Global Governance: A Venture in Critical Reflection * Competition Law and IP Abuse Prevention in Australia: A Comparative Study More info:Categories:Types, Magazines/NewspapersPublished by: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on Apr 04, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Buy This Bookdownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/87953650/WIPO-Journal-2011-Volume-2-Issue-206/27/2014pdftextoriginalSectionsJohn Kiggundu*Cees MulderChidi Oguamanam*Dr George Yijun Tian*
European Patent Attorney and Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at the Faculty of
Law of Maastricht University
Applications; Filing date; Patents
ThePatentLawTreaty(PLT)aimsatharmonisingandstreamliningformalproceduresrelatingtonational
and regional patent applications and maintenance of patents. However, the PLT does not establish a
uniform procedure for all parties to the PLT by leaving many requirements optional, allowing divergence
inimplementationbetweenparties.BoththePLTandthePatentCooperationTreaty(PCT)areinternational
treaties on patent law. As the PCT cannot become a “Contracting Party” to the PLT, there is, ex lege, no
reason for the PCT to comply with the requirements set by the PLT. In view of the close relationship
between the PLT and the PCT, attempts have been undertaken to align the PCT with the PLT but this was
hampered because amendment of the PCT Articles was regarded necessary. In this article the degree of
alignment of the PCT with the PLT is investigated in relation to the filing date requirements under the
In June 2000, the Diplomatic Conference for the Adoption of the Patent Law Treaty (PLT), convened by
the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and encompassing 140 states, adopted the PLT; the
PLTenteredintoforceinApril2005.1
TheaimofthePLTis“toharmonizeandstreamline”,onaworldwide
basis, formal procedures relating to national and regional patent applications and the maintenance of
patents. In particular, the PLT provides maximum sets of requirements that the office of a contracting
party could apply. This means that a contracting party is free to provide for requirements that are more
generous from the viewpoint of applicants and owners. The provisions of the PLT apply to national and
regionalpatentapplicationsandpatentsaswellastointernationalapplicationsunderthePatentCooperation
Treaty (PCT) once these applications have entered the “national phase”.
During the past few years the main features of the PLT have been implemented in a number of national
patentlawsandinregionalpatenttreaties.DuringtheEPC2000revision,theEuropeanPatentConvention
(EPC) was adapted to the PLT.2
Patent Law Treaty; at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/plt/ [Accessed March 29, 2011].
“Revision of the European Patent Convention (EPC 2000): Synoptic Presentation EPC 1973/2000 — Part I: The Articles” [2007] EPO Official
Journal, Special Edition No.4; comment in relation to article 120 EPC, at http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/journal/2007.html [Accessed
March 29, 2011]; “Revision of the European Patent Convention (EPC 2000). Synoptic presentation EPC 1973/2000 — Part II: The EPC Implementing
Regulations”[2007]EPOOfficialJournal,SpecialEditionNo.5;commentinrelationtoEPCr.59,athttp://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/journal
/2007.html [Accessed March 29, 2011]. Also see Cees Mulder and Derk Visser: “Filing Date Requirements under the EPC — An Option to Extend
Subject-matter?”(2010)2epiInformation44,athttp://216.92.57.242/patentepi/en/Information/epi-information.php[AccessedMarch29,2011];Cees
Mulder and Derk Visser: “Filing Date Requirementsunder the EPC — Filing by Referenceto a Previously Filed Application”(2010) 4 epi Information
(2011) 2 W.I.P.O.J., Issue 2 © 2011 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited
Main purpose of this article
Both the PLT and the PCT are international treaties on patent law. The PCT cannot become a “contracting
party” to the PLT.3
So there is, ex lege, no reason for the PCT to comply with the requirements set by the
PLT, for example, with respect to the accordance of a date of filing.
AmainfeatureofthePLTisthatitprovidesstandardisedformalityrequirementsforpatentapplications
which are filed with a national or regional patent office. Instead of defining these requirements again or
differently in the PLT, it was decided to incorporate by reference the provisions of the PCT and its
Regulations,whereverappropriate,intothePLT.ThemainreasonforthisisthatthePCTalreadyregulates
in detail the formality requirements with respect to patent applications.4
The question may arise as to why a (new) PLT was needed. The answer is that the PCT harmonises
formalitiesonly with respect to internationalapplications.The requirementsapplied by offices to national
and regional applications, as well as to international applications having entered the national phase, still
varyconsiderably.ThemainconcernofthedraftersofthePLTwastoavoidcreatinganotherinternationally
applicable standard different from the PCT, since more than 140 countries that are members of the PCT
already apply the standards under the PCT to international applications.5
As the PLT is directly linked to the PCT, it seems “strange” that the PCT does not “comply” with the
basic requirements of the PLT, for example, with respect to the accordance of the international filing date.
As described in this article, the PCT was modified in view of the adoption of the PLT but mainly to satisfy
the requirementsof nationallaw that are necessary for nationalprocessing. Apart from this, attemptshave
been undertaken to improve alignment between the PCT and the PLT, but this was largely impossible
because amendment of the articles of the PCT was regarded necessary. Simply amending the PCT
Regulations to provoke alignment, thereby “bending” the PCT articles, was often considered a bridge too
far in the discussions of the Working Group on Reform of the PCT.
In this article the degree of alignment of the PCT with the PLT is investigated in relation to the filing
daterequirementsunderthePCT.Inparticular,thedifferencesbetweenthePLTandthePCTareidentified.
An analysis of the differences, problems derived from them and possible solutions will be given.
Relationship between the PLT and the PCT
The PLT is connected to the PCT. Although the PLT is primarily focuses on national and regional patent
applications, it incorporates by reference the standards prescribed by the PCT as to the form and contents
of international applications (cf. PLT art.6(1)). These procedural and administrative requirements include
the form and contents of national and regional patent applications, the type of translations of documents
and the evidence which an applicant may be required to provide to an office in the course of processing
the application. In view of the adoption of the PLT, the PCT Regulations were amended in the spirit of
the PLT, enabling applicants, when filing an international application, to satisfy in a simplified manner a
number of requirementsof nationallaw which have to be met when the internationalapplication,at a later
date, enters the national phase before the national office of a PLT Contracting Party.6
The PCT Assembly
decided that these amendments to the PCT Regulations would enter into force on March 1, 2001.7
cf. PLT art.20.
“Basic Features to the Patent Law Treaty (PLT)” (November 2006), items 13–19, at http://www.wipo.int/patent-law/en/plt.htm [Accessed March
29, 2011].
“Basic Features to the Patent Law Treaty (PLT)” (November 2006), item 14, at http://www.wipo.int/patent-law/en/plt.htm [Accessed March 29,
PCT Union, “Proposed Amendments of the PCT Regulations and Modifications of the PCT Administrative Instructions, Relating to the Draft
PatentLawTreaty”,DocumentPCT/A/28/2(January2000),item2,athttp://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4001[AccessedMarch
PCT Union, “Proposed Amendments of the PCT Regulations”, Document PCT/A/28/2, 2000, item 46.
174 The WIPO Journal
PLT art.3(1) specifies the applications and patents to which the PLT applies: “national and regional
applications for patents for invention and for patents of addition”. The terms “national and regional
applications for patents for invention” and “applications for patents of addition” are to be construed in
the same sense as these terms in PCT art.2(i).8
Under PLT art.3(1)(a)(i), the PLT also applies to those
typesofapplicationsforpatentsforinventionandforpatentsofaddition,whichcanbefiledasinternational
applications under the PCT.9
PLT art.3(1)(b) applies to contracting parties which are also party to the PCT. The phrase “Subject to
theprovisionsofthePatentCooperationTreaty”isincludedinPLTart.3(1)(b)toensurethattheprovisions
of the PCT continue to apply to international applications in the “national phase”. For example, a filing
dateaccordedtoaninternationalapplicationunderPCTart.11(2)(b)10
cannotbechallengedbytheapplicant,
once that application has entered the national phase, on the grounds that the application would be entitled
to an earlier filing date under PLT art.5(1)(a).11
The purpose of PLT art.6(1) is to apply, to the extent possible, the requirements relating to the form or
contents of international applications under the PCT to national and regional applications.12
that the expression “form or contents of an application” in PLT art.6(1) is to be construed in the same
manner as the expression in PCT art.27(1) stating that no national law may require compliance with
requirementsrelatingtothe“formorcontentsoftheinternationalapplication”differentfromoradditional
to those which are provided for in the PCT and its Regulations.13
PLT art.6(1)(i) prohibits a contracting party from imposing requirements in respect of the form or
contents of a national or regional application that are stricter than those applicable to international
applications under the PCT.14
In addition, PLT art.6(1)(i) permits a contracting party to require that a
national or regional application complies with any requirements relating to the “form or contents” that
any PCT contracting state is allowed to apply after entry of the international application in the “national
phase”.15
In preparation for the Diplomatic Conference for the Adoption of the PLT, the International Bureau
investigatedhow future changes to the PCT could be incorporatedby referencein the PLT. This principle,
which was not explicitly incorporated into the provisions of the Basic Proposal of the PLT,16
is implicitly
assumed in order to make the interface between the PLT and the PCT viable over time. The International
Bureau could not identify any identical or analogous provisions in other international treaties.17
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations under the Patent Law Treaty Adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on June 1,
2000” (prepared by the International Bureau), Diplomatic Conference for the Adoption of the PLT, Document PT/DC/48 Prov. (November 2000),
Note 16.01, at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4057 [Accessed March 29, 2011].
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations under the Patent Law Treaty”, Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note 3.04.
PCT art.11(2)(b) refers to the situation where the receiving office did accord a later international filing date due to the applicant’s compliance
with an invitation from the receiving office stating that he did not fulfil the requirements of PCT art.11(1), e.g. because of the late filing of at least one
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations under the Patent Law Treaty”, Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note 3.07.
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations under the Patent Law Treaty”, Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note 6.01.
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations under the Patent Law Treaty”, Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note 6.02.
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations under the Patent Law Treaty”, Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note 6.06.
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations under the Patent Law Treaty”, Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note 6.07.
“Basic Proposal for the Patent Law Treaty” (submitted by the Director General of WIPO), Diplomatic Conference for the Adoption of the PLT,
Document PT/DC/3 (November 1999), at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4057 [Accessed March 29, 2011].
“Results of the 28th (16th Extraordinary) Session of the PCT Assembly, March 13–17, 2000; Issues for Possible Discussion at the Diplomatic
Conference” (prepared by the International Bureau), Diplomatic Conference for the Adoption of the PLT, Document PT/DC/6 (April 2000), Item 14,
at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4057 [Accessed March 29, 2011].
An example of such “incorporation by reference” in the field of intellectual property is found in PCT art.62(3), which states that the “provisions of
Article 24 of the Stockholm Act of the Paris Convention” apply to the PCT. This appears to cause no problem because membership to the PCT is, in
principle, limited to countries party to the Paris Convention (cf. PCT art.62(1) and Paris Convention art.1(1)). Another example is that art.2.1 of the
TRIPSAgreementincorporatesbyreferencearts1through12and19oftheParisConvention(1967)(StockholmAct).However,theTRIPSAgreement
does not incorporate future changes to the Paris Convention. Additional examples can be found in: “Results of the 28th (16th Extraordinary) Session
of the PCT Assembly, March 13–17, 2000; Issues for Possible Discussion at the Diplomatic Conference”, Document PT/DC/6 (April 2000), Item 14.
Filing date requirements under the Patent Cooperation Treaty 175
The International Bureau indicated that discussion would be needed at the Diplomatic Conference on
the international law implications of the automatic incorporation of future modifications of the PCT and
the PCT Regulations into the PLT, in particular in respect of parties to the PLT which are not also PCT
contracting states.18
As these non-PCT contracting states are not represented in the PCT Assembly, they
would therefore have no voice in future changes to the PCT Regulations. A further difficulty is posed by
thefactthatfuturechangestothePCTAdministrativeInstructionsshouldalsobeautomaticallyincorporated
intothePLT,eventhoughthesechangesarepromulgatedbytheWIPODirectorGeneralafterconsultation
withofficesandauthoritieswhichhaveadirectinterestintheproposedmodifications,butwithoutexpress
approval by the PCT Assembly.19
Various options to deal with this problem were discussed in a document prepared by the International
Bureau20
and discussed at the Diplomatic Conference for the Adoption of the PLT, which, eventually,
resulted in the adoption of PLT arts 16 and 17(2)(v).21
In addition, an “Agreed Statement” was formulated
during the PLT Diplomatic Conference consolidating the relationship between the PLT and the PCT.22
Theeffectof PLTart.16(1)isthatany revisions,amendmentsand modificationsof thePCT(madeafter
June 2, 2000) will only apply for the purpose of the PLT if two conditions are satisfied. First, the revision,
amendment or modification of the PCT must be consistent with the articles of the PLT. Secondly, that
revision, amendment or modification of the PCT must be adopted by the PLT Assembly, for the purposes
of the PLT, by a majority of three-fourths of the votes cast. Accordingly, future changes to the PCT will
not apply for the purposes of the PLT unless and until they are formally adopted by the PLT Assembly.23
In addition, PLT art.16(2) relates to provisions of the PCT (“transitional provisions”), and by virtue of
which a revised, amended or modified provision of the PCT does not apply to a state party to the PCT, or
toanofficeactingforsuchastate,foraslongasthatrevised,amendedormodifiedprovisionisincompatible
with the law applied by that state or office.24
Alignment of the Patent Cooperation Treaty with the Patent Law Treaty
In view of the adoption of the PLT and the relationship between the PLT and the PCT, the Working Group
on Reform of the PCT discussed proposals designed to align the PCT with the requirements of the PLT.
There was wide agreement as to a number of general observations made by various delegations25
• the principlesof the PLT should so far as possiblebe taken up in the PCT in order to achieve
the same benefits for applicants and offices in the filing and processing of international
applications as would be available for national applications;
• certainfeaturesof thePCTsystemdiffered from nationaland regionalpatentsystems;some
aspects of the PLT were less relevant than others in the context of the PCT system;
Currently (March 1, 2011) all PLT members are also contracting states to the PCT. “Results of the 28th (16th Extraordinary) Session of the PCT
Assembly, March 13–17, 2000; Issues for Possible Discussion at the Diplomatic Conference”, Document PT/DC/6, Item 16.
Conference”, Document PT/DC/6, Item 15.
Conference”, Document PT/DC/6, Items 17–23.
PLT art.16 as currently in the PLT was not present in the “Basic Proposal for the Patent Law Treaty”; see Document PT/DC/3.
“Patent Law Treaty, Regulations under the Patent Law Treaty and Agreed Statements by the Diplomatic Conference” (adopted by the Diplomatic
Conference on June 1, 2000), Diplomatic Conference for the Adoption of the PLT, Document PT/DC/47 (June 2000), Agreed Statements, Item 2, at
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4057 [Accessed March 29, 2011].
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations under the Patent Law Treaty”, Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note 16.01.
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations under the Patent Law Treaty”, Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note 16.03.
“Summary of the Session — Changes Related to the PLT” (prepared by the chair), Document PCT/R/WG/1/9 (November 2002), Item 21, at http:
//www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4446 [Accessed March 29, 2011].
176 The WIPO Journal
• while some provisions of the PLT could be implemented readily by changing the PCT
Regulations, others would require changing the PCT articles; some proposed amendments
tothePCTRegulationsraiseddifficultiesofpossibleinconsistency,tovaryingdegrees,with
the PCT articles, for example, in providing for the accordance of an international filing date
where no claims were present in an international application;
• priorityshouldbegivenbytheWorkingGrouponReformofthePCTtothosematterswhich
would result in the greatest and most immediate practical benefits for users, having regard
also to the degree of complexity involved and to workload implications for offices and
authorities; for example, priority might be given to the following:
provisions for restoration of the priority right;
relief when time-limits were missed, especially the time-limit for entering the
national phase.
With respect to issues in relation of the filing of an international application, the following amendments
in the Regulations under the PCT were, eventually, adopted or amended26
1. Filing missing parts of the description or missing drawings (PLT art.5(6); PCT art.11 and
EPC r.20.5)27
2. restoration of the right to priority (PLT art.13(2); PCT r.26bis.3).
3. addition or correction of a priority claim (PLT art.13(1); PCT r.26bis.1)
was already present in the PCT. In fact, PLT art.13(1) was modelled after PCT r.26bis.1, permitting the
applicant to add or correct a priority claim, on or after the filing date, to an application which could have
claimed the priority of an earlier application but did not do so.28
The following items in the PCT have not or only partly been aligned with the PLT:
4. requirements for according an international filing date to an international application (PLT
art.5(1); PCT art.11(1) and r.20);
5. filing a description and/or drawings by a reference to another application (PLT art.5(7); no
direct equivalent in the PCT).
In this article the requirements in relation to the accordance of an international filing date (items 4, 5 and
1, respectively) are investigated, elucidating the “misalignment” between provisions of the PLT and
provisions of the PCT.
Inconsistencies in provisions dealing with filing date requirements
Filing date requirements—PLT article 5
PLT art.5 governs the requirements for the accordance of a date of filing. In particular, PLT art.5(1)
prescribes the elements of an application to be filed for the purpose of according a date of filing. First,
the office receiving the application documents needs to be satisfied that the elements that it has received
are intended as an application for a patent (PLT art.5(1)(a)(i)). Secondly, the office must be provided with
indications which identify the applicant and/or allow the applicant to be contacted. Instead of such
On April 1, 2007, the Regulations under the PCT were amended to better align the PCT with requirements of the PLT.
Provisions concerning the furnishing of missing parts of the description of missing drawings already existed before the reform of the PCT in view
of the PLT (April 2007). In the context of aligning the PCT with the PLT, the existing provisions were amended.
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations”, Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note 13.01.
Filing date requirements under the Patent Cooperation Treaty 177
indications, the office may accept evidence allowing the identity of the applicant to be established or
allowing the applicant to be contacted by the office (PLT art.5(1)(a)(ii) and (1)(c)). Thirdly, the office
must have received a disclosure of the invention, either in the form of what appears to be a description
or, where permitted, a drawing in place of that description (PLT art.5(1)(a)(iii) and (1)(b)). In addition,
PLT art.5(7) obliges a contracting party to accept, at the time of filing, the replacement of the description
and any drawings in an application by a reference to a previously filed application, subject to certain
formal requirements.29
A PLT contracting party is obliged to accord a date of filing to an application which complies with the
requirements of PLT art.5. Since the list of elements under PLT art.5(1) is exhaustive, a PLT contracting
party is not permitted to require any additional elements for a filing date to be accorded.30
is not permitted to require that the application contains one or more claims, compliance with formal
requirements (for example, that handwritten applications are not accepted), use of a prescribed language
or payment of a filing fee.31
Filing date requirements—PCT article 11
PCT art.11(1) prescribes the requirements for the accordance of an international filing date32
“ThereceivingOfficeshallaccordastheinternationalfilingdatethedateofreceiptoftheinternational
application, provided that that Office has found that, at the time of receipt:
(i) the applicant does not obviously lack, for reasons of residence or nationality, the right to
file an international application with the receiving Office,
an indication that it is intended as an international application,
(e) a part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or claims.”
Filing date requirements—differences/matters of concern
Right to file an international application
The requirements under PCT art.11(1)(i) (“right to file”) are different from those under the PLT, because
the accordance of a filing date in PLT art.5(1) is not dependent on the nationality or residence of the
applicant. As, for example, Argentina is not a PCT contracting state, an international filing date will not
be accorded when an Argentinean national living in Argentina files an international application. Pursuant
to PCT art.9(2), the PCT Assembly may decide to allow residents and nationals of any country party to
the Paris Convention which is not a party to the PCT to file international applications. No such decision
has been taken.33
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations”, Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note 5.23.
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations”, Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note 5.02.
Patent Cooperation Treaty (last amended on October 3, 2001) and the Regulations under the PCT (as in force from 1 July 1, 2011), at http://www
.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/index.html [Accessed March 29, 2011]. cf. Cees Mulder, “The Cross-Referenced Patent Cooperation Treaty” (published yearly),
at http://www.helze.com/ [Accessed March 29, 2011].
PCT Applicant’s Guide, International Phase, (January 2011), Item 6.036: if the indications of the applicant’s residence and nationality as stated
in the request do not support the applicant’s right to file an international application—that is, if the applicant appears not to be (or, where there are two
ormoreapplicants,noneoftheapplicantsappearstobe)aresidentornationalofacontractingstate—thereisprimafacieadefectunderPCTart.11(1)(i)
and the receiving office issues an invitation accordingly to correct that defect. In such a case, it may be that the applicant is able to show that he had,
178 The WIPO Journal
If an applicant files the international application at a non-competent receiving office, there is a fail-safe
arrangement in PCT r.19.4(a)(i) providing that the application will be forwarded to the International
Bureau and is considered to have been received by that receiving office on behalf of the International
Bureau as receiving office under PCT r.19.1(a)(iii). In this situation, PCT art.11(1)(i) is in alignment with
the requirements of the PLT.
Language of filing an international application
TherequirementunderPCTart.11(1)(ii)(“prescribedlanguage”)is,inprinciple,differentfromthatunder
PLT art.5(1). However, the fail-safe arrangement of PCT r.19.4(a)(ii) provides that, when an international
application is filed in a language not accepted by the receiving office, that application will be forwarded
to the International Bureau and is considered to have been received by that receiving office on behalf of
the International Bureau as receiving office under PCT r.19.1(a)(iii).34
The International Bureau of the
WIPO accepts international applications filed in “any language”.35
Intended as an international application
The requirement under PCT art.11(1)(iii)(a) (“indication international application”) is in alignment with
that under PLT art.5(1)(i).
Designation of at least one contracting state
The requirement under PCT art.11(1)(iii)(b) (“designation of States”) is, in principle, different from that
underPLTart.5(1).However,theadoptionofPCTr.4.9impliesanautomaticandall-inclusivedesignation
of all PCT contracting states upon filing an international application.36
The requirement under PCT art.11(1)(iii)(c) (“applicant”) is different from that under PLT art.5(1)(ii).
PCT r.20.1(b) gives a definition of this requirement:
“For the purposes of Article 11(1)(iii)(c), it shall be sufficient to indicate the name of the applicant
in a way which allows the identity of the applicant to be established even if the name is misspelled,
the given names are not fully indicated, or, in the case of legal entities, the indication of the name is
abbreviated or incomplete.”
This definition only deals with the situation that the name of the applicant is more or less known but
contains some formalities error (“misspelled” or incomplete address) which may be corrected upon
invitation by the receiving office (such correction will not result in a re-dating of the international
on the date on which the international application was actually received by the receiving office, the right to file an international application with that
receiving office. In those circumstances, the applicant should submit evidence to the receiving office accordingly, together with a proposed correction
of the indications concerning his residence and/or nationality. If the receiving office is satisfied, on the basis of that evidence, of the applicant’s right
to file the international application, the invitation to correct the defect under PCT art.11(1)(i) will be considered to be an invitation to correct a defect
under PCT art.14(1)(a)(ii) and r.4.5 in the prescribed indications concerning the applicant’s residence and/or nationality, and the indications may be
corrected accordingly. If such a correction is made, no defect will be considered to exist under PCT art.11(1)(i), and the defect will thus not prevent
the accordance of the actual date of receipt of the international application as the international filing date. Note, however, that the United States Patent
and Trademark Office as receiving office has stated that it will not apply the procedure outlined above. See http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/appguide/index
.jsp [Accessed March 29, 2011].
“Summary of the Session — Changes Related to the PLT: Language of the International Application and Translations” (prepared by the chair),
Working Group on Reform of the PCT, Document PCT/R/WG/2/12 (May 2002), Item 27, at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id
=4554 [Accessed March 29, 2011].
PCT Applicant’s Guide, 2011), International Phase — Annex C — International Bureau of the WIPO, at http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/appguide
/index.jsp#I [Accessed March 29, 2011].
“Summary of the Session — Changes Related to the PLT” (prepared by the chair), Document PCT/R/WG/1/9 (November 2002), Items 12–13.
Filing date requirements under the Patent Cooperation Treaty 179
application).However,thedefinitioninPCTr.20.1(b)doesnotaddressthesituation“allowingtheapplicant
to be contacted” as prescribed in PLT art.5(1)(ii). This relates to situations where, for example, only the
name and address of the patent attorney of the applicant and/or only the address or fax number of the
attorney are known. The receiving office contacting the attorney and through him the applicant is not
encompassed in the definition of PCT r.20.1(b). PCT r.20.1(b) could easily be adapted so as to bring it
into alignment with PLT art.5(1)(ii).37
TherequirementunderPCTart.11(1)(iii)(d)(“description”)isinalignmentwiththatunderPLTart.5(1)(iii).
The requirement under PCT art.11(1)(iii)(e) (“claim or claims”) is different from that under PLT art.5(1).
For the accordance of a date of filing under the PLT, it is not permitted to require that the application
contains one or more claims.38
Asmentionedearlier,thePCTcannotbecomea“contractingparty”tothePLT,sothereisnoobligation
to comply with the requirements of the PLT. However, attempts were undertaken in the Working Group
on the Reform of the PCT to align the PCT with the PLT with respect to the compulsory presence of
claims as prescribed in PCT art.11(1)(iii)(e). In particular, the Working Group on Reform of the PCT
indicatedthatitwouldbepreparedtoconsiderotherwaysofdealingwithinternationalapplicationshaving
no claims pending revision of the PCT articles.39
A way to circumvent the requirement of PCT art.11(1)(iii)(e) is to regard claims as a “legal fiction”.40
A proposal to this effect, prepared in great detail by the International Bureau, included the introduction
of a suitably-worded pre-printed statement to be included in the request form (PCT/RO/101) as well as
the presence of “claim-like” wording in the description. To this end a new item would be added to PCT
r.20.4,41
“For the purposes of Article 11(1)(iii)(e), it shall be sufficient that there is wording in any part of the
international application which makes it clear what is the matter for which protection is sought.”
This “claim-like” wording would be sufficient to constitute “a part which on the face of it appears to be
a claim or claims” and, hence, support the accordance of an international filing date. It should be noted
that PCT art.11(1)(iii)(e) does not prescribe where the part that appears to be a claim is to be included in
the international application and, in addition, does not require that the claims be expressly identified as
such. Where compliance with PCT art.11(1)(iii)(e) relies solely on either of these two possibilities, the
international application would be considered to contain a formal defect under PCT art.14, which can be
remedied by the furnishing of “formal” claims as a correction under PCT r.26.42
The later furnishing of
claims would be consistent with PLT art.6(1)(i).
“Changes Related to the Patent Law Treaty (PLT): Other PLT-Related Changes” (prepared by the International Bureau), Working Group on
Reform of the PCT, Document PCT/R/WG/2/6 (2002), Item 21, at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4554 [Accessed March
“Summary of the Session — Changes Related to the PLT” (prepared by the chair), Document PCT/R/WG/1/9, 2002, Item 26.
“Changes Related to the Patent Law Treaty (PLT): Absence of ‘Formal’ Claims” (prepared by the International Bureau), Working Group on
Reform of the PCT, Document PCT/R/WG/2/8 (March 2002), at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4554 [Accessed March 29,
After the reform of the PCT in view of the PLT (April 2007), such an item would have been included in PCT r.20.1.
Reform of the PCT, Document PCT/R/WG/2/8, 2002, Items 3–4.
180 The WIPO Journal
However, it was noted in the Working Group on Reform of the PCT that some of the proposed
amendments raised difficulties of possible inconsistency, to varying degrees, with the PCT articles—in
particular, in providing for the according of a filing date where no claims were present in an international
Filing date requirement—PCT v PLT
ThedifferencesbetweenthefilingdaterequirementsunderthePCTascomparedtothePLTcausefriction.
IfastatebecomesacontractingpartytothePLT,thisstateisobligedtoaccordafilingdatetoanapplication
which complies with the requirements applicable under PLT art.5.44
No re-dating of the application will
be effected if the applicant supplies a set of claims within some time after the filing date, either of his own
volitionoruponinvitationbytheofficewheretheapplicationwasfiled(cf.PLTr.2).Whereanapplication
as filed does not contain one or more claims, which may be required under PLT art.6(1)(i) (with reference
to PCT art.3(2)), a PLT contracting party may require that at least one claim be subsequently filed under
PLT art.6(7), within the time-limit prescribed in PLT r.6(1). However, failure to file such claim(s) within
the prescribed time-limit would not result in the retroactive loss of the filing date, even if the application
were refused under PLT art.6(8)(a).45
Suppose an applicant files an international application with the intention of, at a later date, entering the
national phase before the national office of that state. If his application, on filing, does not contain at least
one claim, no international filing date will be accorded by the receiving office acting under the PCT (PCT
art.11(1)(iii)(e)). The receiving office (which may be the national office of the PLT contracting party)
willinvitetheapplicanttofileatleastoneclaim(PCTart.11(2)(a)andr.20.3(a)).Iftheapplicantcomplies
with the invitation, the receiving office accords as the international filing date, the date of receipt of the
required correction (PCT art.11(2)(b) and r.20.3(b)). The question arises: will the national office of the
PLT contracting party, after entry of the international application into its national phase, accept the initial
filing date (when claims were not included) or the international filing date (when claims were received
by the receiving office)? The answer is that only the international filing date can be accepted as the filing
date under the national law of the state.
If, under the provisions of the PCT, the applicant upon invitation by the receiving office or of his own
volition does not file at least one claim, his international application will not be refused. Instead, the
receiving office will promptly notify the applicant that the application is not and will not be treated as an
internationalapplication(PCTr.20.4(i)).46
Asnointernationalfilingdatewillbeaccordedtotheapplication,
this also implies that the international application will not have the effect of a regular national application
(PCT art.11(3)) and that no priority can be claimed from it (PCT art.11(4)).
Filing by reference to a previously filed application—PLT article 5(7)
Asdescribedabove,PLTart.5(7)obligesacontractingpartytoaccept,atthetimeoffiling,thereplacement
of the description and any drawings in an application by a reference to a previously filed application,47
subject to certain formal requirements.
“Summary of the Session — Changes Related to the PLT” (prepared by the chair), Document PCT/R/WG/1/9, 2002, Item 21(iii); “Summary of
the Session — Other Matters” (prepared by the chair), Document PCT/R/WG/2/12, Item 59, at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting
_id=4554 [Accessed March 29, 2011].
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations”, Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note 5.01.
However, not all is lost in such a case. Pursuant to PCT art.26 the applicant would stand a good chance of proceeding with this application as a
“national” application with the original filing date if the national Office does not require a claim as a filing date requirement under its national law.
Note that a “previously filed application” need not be an application from which priority is claimed. Hence the previously filed application may
have been filed more than 12 months prior to the filing date of the international application.
Filing date requirements under the Patent Cooperation Treaty 181
PLTr.2(5)providestwodifferenttypesofrequirements48
:obligatoryrequirements(indicatedby“shall”),
and optional requirements (indicated by “may require”). Each PLT contracting party can decide which
optional requirements it incorporates into its law as compulsory requirements for the accordance of a
filing date. PLT art.5(7)(b) permits a contracting party to regard an application as not having been filed
if the applicant fails to comply with the obligatory and any optional requirements under PLT r.2(5)
implemented as compulsory by a PLT contracting party.49
PLT r.2(5)(a) prescribes that the indication that the description and any drawings are replaced by the
reference to the previously filed application, as well as the number of that application and the office with
which that application was filed, must be included in the application. According to PLT r.2(5)(a), a PLT
contracting party may require that the reference also indicates the filing date of the previously filed
application. PLT r.2(5)(a) does not require that the reference identifies any claims of the previously filed
application that are incorporated by reference, since claims are not required for the purposes of the filing
date.50
In addition, a PLT contracting party may decide which of the optional requirements mentioned in
PLT r.2(5)(b) are made compulsory for the accordance of a filing date:
• filing a copy of the previously filed application and, where the previously filed application
is not in a language accepted by the office, a translation of that previously filed application,
be filed with the office within a time-limit which shall be not less than two months from the
date of receipt of the application;
• filing a certified copy of the previously filed application with the office within a time-limit
which shall be not less than four months from the date of the receipt of the application.
Where the applicant indicated in the application containing the reference is not the same as the applicant
identifiedinthepreviouslyfiledapplication,theofficepursuanttoPLTr.2(5)(c)mayrequireadeclaration
or other evidence that the previously filed application had been filed by that applicant’s predecessor or
successor in title.51
The latter requirement is not often implemented in the patent law of PLT contracting
parties.52
Filing by reference to a previously filed application—PCT
With respect to “filing by reference” the PCT was not aligned to the PLT. There was an initial proposal
to incorporate a new r.20.4(e) into the PCT, which would provide for a reference to another document to
replace the description, drawings and claims.53
The formulation included54
“ForthepurposesofArticle11(1)(iii)(d),areference,madeuponfilingoftheinternationalapplication,
in a language accepted by the receiving Office under Rule 12.1(a), to a previously filed application
shall … replace the description and any drawings and, if applicable, the claim or claims.”
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations”, Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note R 2.05.
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations”, Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note R 2.05; authors’ interpretation of Note
TheEPOhasnotimplementedthisrequirementinr.56EPC2000.IntheUK,thePatentAct1997(asamended)includesaprovisioninart.15(1)(c)(ii)
stating that a reference to an earlier relevant application must be “made by the applicant or a predecessor in title of his”.
“Changes Related to the Patent Law Treaty (PLT): Contents of the International Application; Language of the International Application and
Translations; Right of Priority and Priority Claims; Time Limits” (prepared by the International Bureau), Working Group on Reform of the PCT,
Document PCT/R/WG/2/8, Item 5.
“Changes Related to the Patent Law Treaty (PLT)” (prepared by the International Bureau), Working Group on Reform of the PCT, Document
PCT/R/WG/2/8, Annex I.
182 The WIPO Journal
Later on, the matter of “filing by reference” in the sense of the PLT was not pursued owing to time
constraintsand low priority.55
As a consequence,in the request form (PCT/RO/101)no provision has been
included to file an international application while referring to a previously filed application. This means
that an applicant upon filing an international application always must file documents comprising the
description, any drawings and, also, at least one claim.
Filing by reference is advantageous when transmitting the application by fax, since the application
documents need not be sent anymore. However, when using electronic filing, the effort to include a copy
oftheapplicationisrelativelysmall.Hencetheadvanceintechnologyawayfromfaxtransmissionappears
to have taken away the main advantage of filing by reference. Moreover, filing the complete application
doesnothavethedisadvantagesoftheriskofuncorrectableerrorsandtheobligationtoprovidea(certified)
copy of the previously filed application.
Filing an application by reference to a previously filed application is, in particular, convenient for
applicants in that upon filing the application only the earlier application need be correctly identified in
the request form. As more and more patent applications become available in electronic manner, the
applicant need no longer file the corresponding application documents. “Filing by reference” is most
convenient when filing a divisional application: it suffices to refer to the description and drawings of the
parent application while, preferably at the same time, filing a new set of claims. At present, the PCT does
not provide for the filing of divisional applications during the international phase.56
It will be shown in the section “Filing an international application by reference to a previously filed
application” below that “filing by reference” under the PCT is possible; however, in a restrictive manner.
In the section “Missing entire description of missing entire set of claims—PCT Rule 20.6” a different use
of “filing by reference” will be described allowing under the PCT to file so-called missing elements, i.e.
where the entire description or all of the claims are missing.
Further inconsistencies in provisions dealing with defects which may affect the
Filing missing parts of the description or missing drawings—PLT article 5(6)
PLT art.5(6) obliges a PLT contracting party to allow the inclusion, in the application, of a missing part
ofthedescriptionoramissingdrawingfiledwithinaprescribedtime-limit.57
Theprovisionapplieswhether
or not the applicant has been notified of an item being missing. Normally, the late filing of a missing part
of the description or a missing drawing causes the filing date to become the date of receipt of the missing
item, provided that all of the other requirements for the accordance of a filing date have been complied
with on that date (cf. PLT r.2(3)).
In particular, PLT art.5(6)(b) obliges a contracting party to allow, upon the request of the applicant, the
inclusion of a missing part of the description or a missing drawing in the application without loss of the
initial filing date, where that missing part or missing drawing is “completely contained” in an earlier
application, from which priority is claimed, provided the additional formality requirements are complied
“ChangesRelatedtothePatentLawTreaty(PLT)—ConformPCT‘MissingPart’RequirementstoThoseofthePLT”(preparedbytheInternational
Bureau),WorkingGrouponReformofthePCT,DocumentPCT/R/WG/4/2(March2003),Item5,athttp://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting
See, e.g., “Divisional Applications under the PCT” (prepared by the International Bureau), Working Group on Reform of the PCT, Document
PCT/R/WG/4/9 (April 2003), at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4554 [Accessed March 29, 2011]; “Divisional Applications
under the PCT” (prepared by the International Bureau), Working Group on Reform of the PCT, Document PCT/R/WG/4/9, 2003, Items 5–6: while,
at present, the PCT does not provide for the filing, during the international phase, of divisional applications, it is to be noted that the 1968 draft of the
PCT contained provisions in both the draft Treaty and the draft Regulations under the Treaty which would have allowed the applicant, in the case of
lack of unity of invention, at his option, to either (1) restrict the claims, or (2) pay additional fees, or divide the application, or both. However, in the
1969 draft of the PCT those provisions were deleted, and the final text of the PCT as signed at the Washington Diplomatic Conference in June 1970
does not contain any provisions concerning the division of an international application during the international phase.
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations” , Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note R 5.21.
Filing date requirements under the Patent Cooperation Treaty 183
with (cf. PLT r.2(3) and (4)).58
The PLT leaves the question whether, in a particular case, a missing part
of the description or a missing drawing is “completely contained” in the earlier application to be treated
as a clerical check by the office, based on the indications provided by the applicant.59
The wording of PLT art.5(6)(b) is very specific with respect to the nature of the earlier application and
by when that application must be mentioned (emphasis added):
“Where the missing part of the description or the missing drawing is filed under subparagraph (a) to
rectify its omission from an application which, at the date on which one or more elements referred
to in paragraph (1)(a) were first received by the Office, claims the priority of an earlier application,
the filing date shall … be the date on which all the requirements applied by the Contracting Party
under paragraphs (1) and (2) are complied with.”
The italicised part of the above citation makes it clear that when the applicant desires to make use of the
provision of PLT art.5(6)(b) to incorporate a missing part of the description or a missing drawing into an
alreadyfiledapplicationwithoutlossofthefilingdateinitiallyaccordedbytheoffice,theearlierapplication
must not only be a priority application but also that the priority of this earlier application must have been
claimed on “the date on which one or more elements” referred to in PLT art.5(1)(a) “were first received
by the Office”, i.e. on the initial filing date.
Filing missing parts of the description or missing drawings—PCT rule 20.5
The requirements as set out in PLT art.5(6) for filing missing parts of the description or missing drawings
have been taken over in PCT r.20. In particular, “missing parts” are defined in PCT r.20.5 (emphasis
“Where, in determining whether the papers purporting to be an international application fulfill the
requirements of Article 11(1), the receiving Office finds that a part of the description, claims or
drawings is or appears to be missing, including the case where all of the drawings are or appear to
be missing but not including the case where an entire element referred to in Article 11(1)(iii)(d) or
(e) is or appears to be missing”.
According to the above definition a “missing part” includes any part of the description, any part of the
claimsand/oranypartorallofthedrawingsoftheinternationalapplicationaslongasitisnotthe“entire”
description (PCT art.11(1)(iii)(d)) or the “entire” set of claims (PCT art.11(1)(iii)(e)). As can be seen, the
definition also refers to a missing part of the claims (see section “Missing part of the claims—PCT rule
20.5” below).
Most patent laws already had a provision allowing the applicant to late file missing drawings. In the
PCT this is dealt with in PCT art.14(2):
“If theinternationalapplicationrefersto drawingswhich, in fact,arenot includedin thatapplication,
the receiving Office shall notify the applicant accordingly and he may furnish them within the
prescribed time limit and, if he does, the international filing date shall be the date on which the
drawings are received by the receiving Office. Otherwise, any reference to the said drawings shall
be considered nonexistent.”
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations” , Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note 5.21.
“Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations” , Document PT/DC/48 Prov., 2000, Note R 2.04.
184 The WIPO Journal
Before the Reform of the PCT in view of the PLT (April 2007), PCT art.14(2) found its implementation
in PCT r.26.6. Although PCT art.14(2) and r.26 belong to the “formalities examination” by the receiving
office, the consequence of the late furnishing of drawings was (always) that the international filing date,
already accorded pursuant PCT art.11(1), was re-dated to the date on which the missing drawings were
received by the receiving office.
As a result of aligning the PCT with the PLT, the requirement of the late filing of drawings was
incorporated into PCT r.20 implementing PCT art.11 (“international filing date”) while abolishing PCT
r.26.6.60
At the same time, the scope of PCT r.20 was broadened, allowing the applicant to file not only
missing drawings but also missing parts of the description and/or missing parts of the claims (see section
“Missing part of the claims—PCT rule 20.5” below), as well as providing for the case when all of the
description and/or all of the claims are missing (see section “Missing entire description of missing entire
set of claims—PCT rule 20.6” below).
Missing parts of the description or missing drawings can be filed by the applicant upon invitation when
the receiving office finds that parts of the description and/or drawings are, or appear to be, missing. PCT
r.20.5(a) deals with the case that the receiving office finds that a “missing part” is missing or appears to
be missing. The time-limit for furnishing such missing parts is two months from the date of the invitation
(PCT r.20.7(a)(i)).
The filing of “missing parts” can also be done by the applicant of his own volition. This own volition
is hidden in the wording “or otherwise” in PCT r.20.5(b), in the sentence: “Where, following an invitation
under paragraph (a) or otherwise, the applicant furnishes to the receiving Office …” (emphasis added).
If the applicant notices and wishes to correct the defect on his own initiative, this is permitted within a
time-limit of two months from the date on which papers were first received by the receiving office (PCT
r.20.7(a)(ii)). The time-limits in PCT r.20.7(a)(i) and (ii) were fixed at two months in alignment with the
minimum duration of such time-limits under the PLT.61
Filing missing parts—re-dating the international application
The filing of missing parts of the description or missing drawings normally results in a re-dating of the
international filing date. If the applicant furnishes to the receiving office the required correction under
PCT art.11(2) on a date after the date of receipt of the purported international application (but falling
within the applicable time-limit under PCT r.20.7), the receiving office will accord that later date as the
international filing date (cf. PCT r.20.3(b)(i) and r.20.5(c)).
Where the international filing date has been corrected in the above sense, the applicant may realise that
his re-dated international application no longer lies within the period for claiming priority from an earlier
(national) application and he might want to undo the filing of the missing parts retroactively. In that case,
the applicant may request the receiving office to disregard the missing part in order to establish that the
initial filing date62
becomes the international filing date and, hence, to retain the priority claim (PCT
r.20.5(e)). This notice of withdrawal has to be sent to the receiving office within one month from the date
of mailing of the later submitted parts (PCT r.20.5(e)).
The abolition of PCT r.26.6 has diminished the effectiveness of PCT art.14(2) because all issues relating to late-filed drawings are now covered
in PCT r.20 implementing PCT art.11(2).
“Report — Missing Elements and Parts of the International Application” (adopted by the Working Group), Document PCT/R/WG/7/13, 2005,
Item 24, at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=7129 [Accessed March 29, 2011].
In this article the wording the “initial filing date” is used to indicate the date on which one or more elements referred to in PCT art.11(1)(iii) were
first received by the receiving office.
Filing date requirements under the Patent Cooperation Treaty 185
Generally, the “priority period” is 12 months from the filing date of the earlier application from which
priority is claimed.63
If the corrected international filing date falls outside this 12-month period but within
a period of two months after the expiration of the priority period of the claim concerned, the applicant
may file a request for restoration of right of priority at the receiving office under the applicable condition
(PCT r.26bis.3).64
Filing missing parts without re-dating—incorporation by reference
Under certain circumstances, missing parts of the description or missing drawings can be added to an
internationalapplicationwithoutaffectingtheinternationalfilingdate.InlinewithPLTart.5(6)andr.2(4),
thisispossiblewhenthemissingpartsofthedescriptionorthemissingdrawingsare“completelycontained”
in an earlier application from which priority is claimed on the initial filing date.
As a first step the applicant must declare, upon filing the international application containing at least
someoftheelementsreferredtoinPCTart.11(1)(iii)andwhileclaimingpriorityfromanearlierapplication,
thathereservestherighttolateronrelyonpartsorelementswhicharecompletelycontainedinthepriority
application. To this end Box No.VI “Priority Claim” of the request form (PCT/RO/101) includes a
pre-printed statement, stating:
“Incorporation by reference: where an element of the international application referred to in Article
11(1)(iii)(d) or (e) or a part of the description, claims or drawings referred to in Rule 20.5(a) is not
otherwise contained in this international application but is completely contained in an earlier
applicationwhosepriorityisclaimedonthedateonwhichoneormoreelementsreferredtoinArticle
11(1)(iii) were first received by the receiving Office, that element or part is, subject to confirmation
under Rule 20.6, incorporated by reference in this international application for the purposes of Rule
20.6”.65
The formulation of this statement is based on PCT r.4.18 and is formulated in line with PLT art.5(6)(b)
andr.2(4)(5).Thepriorityclaimmusthavebeenincludedintherequestontheinitialfilingdateandcannot
be added later on, for example, by applying PCT r.26bis.1(a).66
The latter requirement is in line with PLT
art.5(6).
If the applicant files a missing part of the description or a missing drawing based on the content of the
application from which priority is claimed on the initial filing date, the following requirements must be
met (cf. PCT r.20.6(a)):
• The applicant must confirm the incorporation by reference by way of a written notice to the
• Such notice should be accompanied by:
a sheet or sheets embodying the missing part as contained in the application from
which priority is claimed;
wheretheapplicanthasnotalreadycompliedwiththerequirementsofPCTr.17.1(a),
(b) or (b-bis),67
a copy of the priority application as filed;
cf.PCTart.8(2)referringtoart.4of theParisConvention. Article4A(1) and4C(1)of theParisConventionregulatea rightof priorityof 12 months
for patents and utility models.
A number of receiving offices have declared that PCT r.26bis.3 is not compatible with the national law applied by the receiving office (PCT
r.26bis.3(j)). For these offices, restoration of the right of priority is not possible. In addition, a number of designated/elected offices has declared that
restoration of the right of priority is not compatible with the national law as applied by the designated/elected office (PCT r.49ter.1(g)).
If such a statement was not contained in the request at the time of filing, it can only be added to the request if it was otherwise contained in, or
submitted with, the international application on the date of filing (cf. PCT r.4.18, last sentence).
See the PCT Applicant’s Guide — International Phase, 2011, Item 6.028, at http://www.wipo.int/pct/guide/en/gdvol1/pdf/gdvol1.pdf [Accessed
March 29, 2011].
PCT r.17.1(a) relates to the case where a certified copy of the earlier application has been submitted by the applicant to the International Bureau
or the receiving office (unless it has already been filed with the receiving office together with the international application).
186 The WIPO Journal
where the priority application is not in a language in which the international
application is filed (PCT r.20.6(a)(iii)), a translation or translations of the priority
an indication as to where the missing part is contained in the priority application
and, where applicable, in any translation of the earlier application.
It seems superfluous that upon filing missing parts of the description or missing drawings, the applicant
should confirm the incorporation by reference statement under PCT r.4.18. The relevance of the formal
confirmation of the “incorporation by reference” was extensively discussed in the Working Group on
Reform of the PCT.68
The start of the two-month time-limit for confirming the incorporation by reference of missing parts
of the description or missing drawings differs depending on the situation. Where no invitation by the
receiving office has been sent to submit missing parts, the time-limit to confirm is two months from the
date on which papers were first received by the receiving office (PCT r.20.7(a)(ii)). Where such an
invitationhasbeenissued,thetime-limittoconfirmistwomonthsfromthedateofmailingofthisinvitation
(PCT r.20.7(a)(i)).69
Where the receiving office finds that the requirements of PCT r.4.18 and PCT r.20.6(a) have been
complied with and that the missing part of the description or the missing drawing is completely contained
in the priority application, that part is considered to have been contained in the purported international
application on the initial filing date.
The procedure of incorporation by reference does not apply if the receiving office has notified the
InternationalBureauunderPCTr.20.8(a)thatanyofr.20.3(a)(ii)and20.3(b)(ii),20.5(a)(ii)and20.5(a)(d),
and 20.6 are not compatible with its national law.70
Inmostcontractingstates,thepartswillbetreatedasiftheywereactuallycontainedintheinternational
application as originally filed.71
However, those designated/elected offices which have submitted
notifications of incompatibility under PCT r.20.8(b), may treat the international application as if the
international filing date had been accorded on the basis of the date on which the sheets containing the
missing parts were submitted (PCT r.20.8(c)).72
Missing part of the claims—PLT article 5(6)
PLT art.5(6) does not address the issue of allowing the inclusion, in the application, of a missing part of
the claims filed within a prescribed time-limit. The reason for this is that claims are not a filing date
requirement according to the PLT.
PCT r.17.1(b) relates to the case where the priority document is issued by the receiving office and the applicant has requested the receiving office
to transmit the priority document to the International Bureau. PCT r.17.1(b-bis) relates to the case where the priority document is available to either
the International Bureau or to the receiving office from a digital library and the applicant has requested to obtain the priority document from such a
“SummaryoftheSession—‘MissingPart’Requirements”(preparedbytheInternationalBureau),WorkingGrouponReformofthePCT,Document
PCT/R/WG/5/13 (2003), Item 88, at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4554 [Accessed March 29, 2011].
The outcome of the discussion in the Working Group on Reform of the PCT was that “incorporation by reference” is not to be regarded as a standard
feature applicable to all international applications but that express confirmation by the applicant would be required if the applicant wanted to rely on
this instrument to correct a mistake made when filing the application. In other words, the content of prior applications is not automaticallyincorporated
by reference into the international application; rather an express confirmation is required by the applicant in each and every case.
If this time-limit expires after the expiration of 12 months from the filing date of the earliest application, the priority of which is claimed, the
receiving office will draw this circumstance to the attention of the applicant. PCT Applicant’s Guide — International Phase, 2011, Item 6.029, at http:
//www.wipo.int/pct/en/appguide/index.jsp [Accessed March 29, 2011].
Such a receiving office will neither invite nor accept a confirmation of the incorporation by reference.
Designated and elected offices may, to a limited extent, review decisions by receiving offices which have allowed incorporation by reference
(PCT r.82ter.1(b)).
Missing parts may be omitted only after having given the applicant the opportunity to make observations on this outcome and/or to request that,
at least, the missing parts which had been furnished be disregarded (PCT r.20.8(c)).
Filing date requirements under the Patent Cooperation Treaty 187
Missing part of the claims—PCT rule 20.5
As discussed, PCT art.11(1)(iii)(e) requires the presence of “a part which on the face of it appears to be
a claim or claims”. Hence the case may arise that a part of the claims is missing. It is for this reason that
the PCT allows the filing of a missing part of the claims. The definition in PCT r.20.5 (“missing parts”)
includes the situation where a part of the claims are missing (emphasis added):
(e) is or appears to be missing … .”
description or the “entire” set of claims (see section “Missing Entire Description of Missing Entire Set of
Claims — PCT Rule 20.6” below).
Analogous to what is described in section “Filing Missing Parts of the Description or Missing
Drawings—PCT Rule 20.5” above, a missing part of the claims can be filed by the applicant of his own
volition or upon invitation, when the receiving office finds that a part of the claims is, or appears to be,
missing. The filing of a missing part of the claims normally results in a re-dating of the internationalfiling
date (cf. PCT r.20.5(c)).
Analogous to what is described in the section “Filing Missing Parts Without Re-dating—Incorporation
by Reference”, a missing part of the claims can be added to an international application without affecting
theinternationalfilingdate.Thisispossiblewhenthemissingpartoftheclaimsis“completelycontained”
Missing entire description of missing entire set of claims—PLT article 5(6)
PLT art.5(6) deals with the inclusion, in the application, of missing parts of the description and missing
drawings. However, PLT art.5(6) does not address the issue of allowing the inclusion of the entire
description and/or the entire set of claims.
Missing entire description of missing entire set of claims—PCT rule 20.6
Forthepurposeofaccordinganinternationalfilingdate,PCTart.11(1)(iii)(d)and(e),asdiscussed,require
the presence of “a part which on the face of it appears to be a description” and “a part which on the face
of it appears to be a claim or claims”, respectively. In addition, the PCT did not implement the provision
of“filingbyreference”(seesection“FilingbyReferencetoaPreviouslyFiledApplication—PCT”above).
The Working Group on Reform of the PCT considered a different approach with respect to the issue
of “filing by reference” by considering that under the PLT, an applicant can, for the purposes of the filing
date of the application, replace the description and any drawings by a reference to a previously filed
application (see PLT art.5(7) and r.2(5)). In particular, the Working Group explored the possibilities as
to whether the proposed incorporation by reference discussed in the context of “missing parts” could be
extended to cover the contents of such earlier application for the purposes of overcoming PCT
art.11(1)(iii)(d) and (e) defects; such defects are addressed as “missing elements” and refer, for example,
to the case where the entire description or all the claims is missing.73
“‘Missing Part’ Requirements” (prepared by the International Bureau), Working Group on Reform of the PCT, Document PCT/R/WG/6/4, 2004,
Item 11, at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4554 [Accessed March 29, 2011].
188 The WIPO Journal
TheresultwasthatthePCTRegulationswereamendedbyadoptinganewr.20.6allowingtheapplicant,
by way of reference to an earlier application, not only to rectify the omission, at the time of filing, of
certainpartsoftheinternationalapplication(theso-called“incorporationbyreference”of“missingparts”,
similar to the provision under PLT art.5(6)(b) and r.2(4)) without the loss of the international filing date,
but also to allow replacement of the “part which on the face of it appears to be a description” (PCT
art.11(1)(iii)(d)) and/or the “part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or claims” (PCT
art.11(1)(iii)(e)) for the purposes of the international filing date (the so-called incorporation by reference
of “missing elements”, similar to the provision under PLT art.5(7) in respect of the description and any
drawings).74
From the definition in PCT r.20.5 (“missing parts”) it follows that a “missing part” only includes any
part of the description, any part of the claims and/or any part or all of the drawings of the international
application. The wording “missing elements” is used when the “entire” description or the “entire” set of
claims is or appears to be missing. Such an “element” is mentioned in PCT r.20.3(a)(ii) and in 20.3(b)(ii)
whereitisidentifiedas:“anelementreferredtoinArticle11(1)(iii)(d)or(e)”.Thisshouldnotbeconfused
withthewording:“oneormoreelementsreferredtoinArticle11(1)(iii)”whichisusedinPCTr.20.3(b)(ii),
20.5(d), 20.6(b) and 20.7(a)(ii), because the latter definition includes all five items of PCT art.11(1)(iii)
including the description (item d) and the claims (item e). To further confuse things, in PCT r.20.5(a) and
20.6(a)(i) reference is made to (emphasis added): “an entire element referred to in Article 11(1)(iii)(d) or
(e)”, which wording probably means the same as “element” at the other occurrences.75
word “entire” has been added to emphasise the difference between a “part” of the description or claims
andthe“entire”descriptionorclaims.Forlegalconsistency,itwould,however,bebettertodelete“entire”
from the wording “entire element” in PCT r.20.5(a) and 20.6(a)(i).
“Missing elements” can be filed by the applicant of his own volition or upon invitation when the
receivingofficefindsthattheentiredescriptionand/ortheentiresetofclaimsare,orappeartobe,missing.
Such a finding is addressed as a “defect under PCT Article 11(1)” and dealt with in PCT r.20.3 in relation
to any of the requirements of PCT art.11(1)(iii)(a)-(e) and, in particular, with respect to “an element
referred to in Article 11(1)(iii)(d) or (e)”, i.e. when the entire description and/or the entire set of claims
If the applicant files a “missing element” based on the content of the application from which priority
is claimed on the initial filing date, the following requirements must be met (cf. PCT r.20.6(a)):
a sheet or sheets embodying the missing element as contained in the application
from which priority is claimed;
(b) or (b-bis), a copy of the priority application as filed;
Similar to the situation of “missing parts”, the start of the two-month time-limit for confirming the
incorporation by reference of missing elements differs depending on whether the receiving office has sent
aninvitationtosubmitmissingelementorwhethertheapplicantfilesmissingelementsofhisownvolition.
Note that the wording “entire elements” is also used in PCT r.91.1(g)(i) in relation to PCT art.3(2).
Filing date requirements under the Patent Cooperation Treaty 189
WherethereceivingofficefindsthattherequirementsofPCTr.4.18andPCTr.20.6(a)havebeencomplied
with and that the missing element is completely contained in the priority application, that element is
considered to have been contained in the purported international application on the initial filing date.
In most contracting states, the elements will be treated as if they were actually contained in the
international application as originally filed.76
However, those designated/elected offices which have
submitted notifications of incompatibility under PCT r.20.8(b) may treat the international application as
if the international filing date had been accorded on the basis of the date on which the sheets containing
the missing elements were submitted (PCT r.20.8(c)).
Filing an international application by reference to a previously filed application
In the section “Filing by Reference to a Previously Filed Application—PCT” above, it was discussed that
the PCT was not aligned to the PLT with respect to the issue of “filing by reference”. Although not
explicitly provided for in the PCT, there is, however, a possibility to file an international application by
referencetoanearlierapplication,ifthatearlierapplicationisanapplicationfromwhichpriorityisclaimed
on the initial filing date. Suppose that on that day the applicant only files a filled-in request form
(PCT/RO/101) containing at least the priority claim to be relied on for the incorporation of reference. By
filingtherequestformtothereceivingoffice,thereceivingofficehasatleastreceived“anindicationthat”
the application “is intended as an international application”, thereby meeting the requirement of PCT
art.11(1)(iii)(a). In addition, the receiving office will notice that the application as filed does not fulfil all
requirements of PCT art.11(1)(iii) for the accordance of an international filing date and will promptly
invite the applicant to file the required corrections (PCT art.11(2) and r.20.3(a)). The applicant can then
confirm that the missing elements (the entire description and the entire set of claims) and the missing part
(all of the drawings) are incorporated by reference based on the priority application (PCT rr.20.6 and
4.18).Ofcourse,uponincorporatingbyreferencethemissingelementsandthemissingparts,theapplicant
must submit to the receiving office all the sheets embodying the missing elements and the missing parts
(PCT r.20.6(a)(i)). If not already available to the receiving office, the applicant must also file a copy (and
possibly a translation) of the priority application (PCT r.20.6(a)(ii) and (iii)).
Amendment of the PCT articles and the Regulations
The PCT articles can be revised by a Revision Conference of the PCT Contraction States (PCT art.60(1)).
With currently more than 140 PCT contracting states, it will be difficult to achieve consensus about the
required revision of the PCT articles.
TheRegulationsunderthePCTmaybeamendedbytheAssembly(PCTart.58(3))andrequireunanimous
consent. In order to make certain amendments acceptable, transitional reservations are frequently
incorporated in the amended Regulations. A PCT contracting state declaring that such an amendment is
not compatible with the national law of the state need not apply the amended provision until such time as
the position might be solved under its national law.77
For examples of reservations and incompatibilities (situation as of July 2010) see PCT r.4.9(b), r.4.10(d), r.20.1(d), r.20.8(a) and (b), r.26.3ter(b)
and (d), r.26bis.3(j), r.49.5(l), r.49.6(f), r.49ter.1(g), r.49ter.2(h), r.51bis.1(f), r.51bis.2(c), r.51bis.3(c) and r.66.1bis(b).
190 The WIPO Journal
“Bending” of PCT articles in the Regulations
Flexibility in the system has over the years been added to the PCT by amending the Regulations under
the PCT. In this manner, the rigidity of certain PCT articles has been mitigated in the PCT Regulations.
AtanumberofoccasionsthishasledtoinconsistenciesbetweenthePCTarticlesandthePCTRegulations.
Some examples of such inconsistencies are given in the following paragraphs.
A first example of an inconsistency between a PCT article and the PCT Regulations is that it was desired
at a certain moment in time to abolish the designation fees and incorporate these into a new so-called
“international filing fee”.78
PCT art.4(2) states (emphasis added):
“Every designation shall be subject to the payment of the prescribed fee within the prescribed time
The word “prescribed” indicates that the “fee” and the “time limit” are to be found somewhere in the PCT
Regulations. Before the abolition of the designation fee, it was “prescribed” in PCT r.15.2 that the
“international fee” consists of two parts: the “basic fee” and the “designation fee”. The time-limit for
payment of the designation fee was prescribed in PCT r.15.4. After the accordance of the international
filing date, the receiving office checks, among other things, whether the fees have been paid (PCT art.14).
InPCTart.14(3)(a)thereceivingofficecheckswhetherwithintheprescribedtime-limit“nofeeprescribed
under Article 4(2) has been paid in respect of any of the designated States”. In PCT art.14(3)(b) the
receiving office checks whether “the fee prescribed under Article 4(2) has been paid in respect of one or
more (but less than all) designated States within the prescribed time limit”. The various consequences of
non-compliance are indicated in the respective paragraphs of the articles.
What happened to the payment of designation fees was abolished?79
Well, there is no longer any
“prescribed” fee and there is no longer any “prescribed” time-limit for the designation fee(s) in the PCT
Regulations.80
The two instancesof the word “prescribed”in PCTart.4(2) are preservedwithoutreference
in the Regulations. No sentence was added somewhere in amended PCT r.15 about the internationalfiling
fee, such as:
“By paying the international filing fee within the time limit of Rule 15.4, the applicant is deemed to
have paid the fee prescribed in Article 4(2) within the time limit prescribed in Article 4(2).”81
It can be concluded that PCT art.4(2) has become a “lame duck”.
What happened with the references in PCT art.14(3) with respect to the “fee prescribed under Article
4(2)”? As the designation fee was linked to the international filing fee, the wording “fee prescribed under
Article 4(2)” was given the following interpretation in PCT r.27.1(b):
“For the purposes of Article 14(3)(a) and (b), ‘the fee prescribed under Article 4(2)’ means the
international filing fee (Rule 15.1) and, where required, the late payment fee (Rule 16bis.2).”
“TheConceptandOperationoftheDesignationSystem”(preparedbytheInternationalBureau),WorkingGrouponReformofthePCT,Document
PCT/R/WG/1/1 (September 2001), Item 59, at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4554 [Accessed March 29, 2011].
The Regulations under the PCT as amended, effective January 1, 2004.
ThereisnoreferenceinthePCTApplicant’sGuide—InternationalPhase,2011,toPCTart.4(2).Inaddition,thereisnomentionofthe“designation
fee”.
The original proposal of the International Bureau for the reformulation of PCT r.15.1, as contained in the Annex of PCT/R/WG/1/1, in relation
to the “international filing fee” contained a sentence: “That fee includes the fee referred to in Article 4(2).” However, this sentence was abolished in
later versions of PCT r.15.1.
Filing date requirements under the Patent Cooperation Treaty 191
AnotherconsequenceoftheabolishmentofthedesignationfeeswastheintroductionofPCTr.4.9specifying
an automatic and all-inclusive designation of all PCT contracting states, for all types of protection and
also in respect of regional patent treaties. The introduction of this rule has more or less inactivated PCT
arts 43, 44 and 45, at least insofar as the international phase is concerned.
WTO priority claims
A second example of an inconsistency between the PCT articles and rules is that it was desired, in view
of the TRIPS Agreement, to acknowledge apart from priority claims from Paris Convention states as well
as parties to the WTO. However, PCT art.8(1) is “rigid” about this:
“The international application may contain a declaration, as prescribed in the PCT Regulations,
claiming the priority of one or more earlier applications filed in or for any country party to the Paris
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.”
In addition PCT art.8(2)(a) specifically refers to the “Stockholm Act of the Paris Convention”. Flexibility
was added to the Regulations, by the following addition in PCT r.4.10(a) (emphasis added):
“Any declaration referred to in Article 8(1) (‘priority claim’) may claim the priority of one or more
earlier applications filed either in or for any country party to the Paris Convention for the Protection
of Industrial Propertyor in or for any Member of the World Trade Organization that is not party to
that Convention.”
Misalignments in the Regulations
There are also minor “misalignments” between various rules in the Regulations under the PCT. For
example,PCTr.4.5clearlystates,withoutanyprejudice,thattheindicationsoftheapplicantsintherequest
with respect to name, address, nationality and residence must be indicated for “each of them”. Similarly,
PCT r.4.15 clearly states, without any prejudice, that all applicants must sign the request. When looking
at these rules, one is made to believe that “all” applicants have to comply with the prescriptions in these
rules. Nevertheless, PCT r.26.2bis(b) and (a) say that (for the purpose of the formalities check by the
receiving office under art.14(1)(a)) it is sufficient if one of the applicants meets the requirement of PCT
r.4.5(a)(ii) and (iii), and r.4.15, respectively.82
Such inconsistencies render the PCT user-unfriendly.
Discussions in the Working Group on Reform of the PCT
At the first session of the Working Group on Reform of the PCT held in 2001, proposals were discussed
to amend the Regulations under the PCT so as to align the requirements of the PCT with regard to claims
as a filing date requirement to those of the PLT.83
PCT art.11(1)(iii)(e) requires that for an international
filing date to be accorded, an international application shall, inter alia, contain a part which on the face of
it appears to be a claim or claims whereas, under the PLT, claims are not required for a filing date to be
accorded (PLT art.5(1)). The comments and concerns expressed by the various delegations included the
Note, however, that any designated office may in accordance with the applicable national law require the applicant to furnish the confirmation of
the international application by the signature of any applicant for the designated state who has not signed the request and/or any missing indication
required under PCT r.4.5(a)(ii) and (iii) in respect of any applicant for the designated state (cf. PCT r.51bis.1(a)(vi) and (vii), respectively).
“Summary of the Session — Contents of the International Application; Language of the International Application and Translations; Right of
Priority and Priority Claims; Time Limits” (prepared by the International Bureau), Document PCT/R/WG/1/5 (October 2001), at http://www.wipo.int
/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4446 [Accessed March 29, 2011].
“Summary of the Session — Changes Related to the PLT” (prepared by the chair), Document PCT/R/WG/1/9 2002, Item 25.
192 The WIPO Journal
• the idea of according a filing date under the PCT to an international application without
claims was widely supported, but the wording of PCT art.11(1)(iii)(e) and art.58 did not
support the draft rules proposed—it would be necessary to develop a proposal to revise the
PCT itself;
• to adopt amended PCT Regulations that were so clearly inconsistent with the PCT articles
itself would jeopardise the rights of applicants;
• the PCT provided no basis for adding claims before the international search took place.
As a response to these concerns, the Working Group in Reform of the PCT indicated that it would be
prepared to consider other ways of dealing with international applications having no claims pending
revision of the PCT itself. The International Bureau indicated that it would attempt to elaborate proposals
bearing in mind, in particular, the following possibilities85
• the PCT distinguishes between the “international application” on the one hand and the
“recordcopy”ontheother;differenttreatmentmaybeabletobeaccordedtopapersaccording
to those different notions;
• advantage might be able to be taken in cases where there is “claim-like” wording appearing
inthedescription;itwasnotedthattheprocedureundertheEPCprovidedforthedescription
to repeat, in effect, the wording of the claims;
• the request form could include pre-printed wording sufficient to constitute “a part which on
the face of it appears to be a claim or claims” for the purposes of PCT art.11(1)(iii)(e);
• theinternationalsearchmightbeabletobeundertakenwithoutthepresenceofformalclaims,
or on the basis of a “search statement” furnished by the applicant;
• new possibilities being developed for combined search and examination under the PCT
might allow for claims furnished under PCT art.34 to be taken into account for both
international search and international preliminary examination.
In addition, proposals in relation to “filing by reference to a previously filed application” were discussed
at the first session of the Working Group on Reform of the PCT. The comments and concerns expressed
by the various delegations included the following86
• some delegations supported and others opposed the proposal;
• the cases requiring this kind of remedy were rare, and certain delegations felt that this issue
should not have a high priority;
• any proposals in this direction should be co-ordinated with the proposal for the expanded
international search system, where the International Searching Authority, in addition to the
International Search Report, establishes a written opinion;
• userrepresentativesexpressedtheirsupportforaproposalwhichwouldpermitsuchreference
filings under the PCT.
The Working Group agreed that the question of reference filings should be reconsidered in substance and
in terms of its priority among the other proposals before the Working Group.87
“Summary of the Session — Changes Related to the PLT” (prepared by the chair), Document PCT/R/WG/1/9, 2002, Item 27.
“Summary of the Session — Changes Related to the PLT” (prepared by the chair), Document PCT/R/WG/1/9, 2002, Item 28.
Filing date requirements under the Patent Cooperation Treaty 193
InlatersessionsoftheWorkingGrouponReformofthePCTprioritywasgiventothosematters“which
would result in the greatest and most immediate practical benefits for users, having regard also to the
degree of complexity involved and to workload implications for Offices and Authorities”. In particular,
the Working Group focused on proposals concerning restoration of the right of priority and relief when
time-limits were missed, especially the time-limit for entering the national phase.88
Reform of the PCT—issues not pursued
DuringitsmeetinginOctober2005,theAssemblyofthe“PCTUnion”decidedtoreformthePCTinview
of the PLT.89
Consequently, a number of amendments of the Regulations under the PCT entered into force
on April 1, 2007, relating to the following issues90
• missing elements and parts of the international application;
• restoration of the right of priority;
• rectification of obvious mistakes.
The proposed amendments help applicants to avoid loss of rights in certain circumstances, consistently
with the PLT, while maintaining an appropriate balance between the interests of applicants and third
parties.91
As discussed above, there was no mitigation of the compulsory presence of claims when filing an
international application as prescribed in PCT art.11(1)(iii)(e) as compared with the exhaustive list of
requirements for according a filing date under PLT art.5(1). Despite the proposal of the International
Bureauto“bend”thePCTarticlesbyregardingclaimsasa“legalfiction”,suchamendmentwas,eventually,
not adopted by the Working Group on the Reform of the PCT and therefore not put before the Assembly
of the PCT Union. These differences between the filing date requirements under the PCT as compared to
the PLT cause friction. A PLT contracting party is obliged to accord a filing date to an application filed
in the absence of claims. In addition, no re-dating of the application will take place if the applicant later
on supplies a set of claims. However, if an applicant files an international application at the same office,
the presence of at least one claim is compulsory and an international filing date will only be accorded
when the applicant files at least one claim.
In view of the filing date requirements under the PLT, the PCT allows the filing of a missing part of
the description or a missing drawing (cf. PCT r.20.5). In addition, the filing of missing parts may be based
on a priority application. Owing to the presence of claims being obligatory when filing an international
application,it was decidedto allowan applicantalso to filea missingpart of a claim.Moreover, it became
possibleunderthePCTtofileacompletesetofclaimsand/ortheentiredescriptionasaso-called“missing
element” (cf. PCT r.20.3 and 20.6). All this resulted in PCT r.20 being complicatedly formulated because
it encompasses the possibilities of filing missing parts as well as missing elements.
In addition, it was also discussed in relation to filing date requirements, that PCT r.20.1(b) could easily
have been adapted to incorporate the requirement “allowing the applicant to be contacted” as prescribed
in PLT art.5(1)(ii).
Bureau), Working Group on Reform of the PCT, Document PCT/R/WG/4/2, 2003, Item 2.
PCTUnion,“Report”,DocumentPCT/A/34/6(October2005),athttp://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=9006[AccessedMarch
PCT Union, “Proposed Amendments of the PCT Regulations”, Document PCT/A/34/2 Rev. (September 2005), Item 1, at http://www.wipo.int
/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=9006 [Accessed March 29, 2011].
PCT Union, “Proposed Amendments of the PCT Regulations”, Document PCT/A/34/2 Rev., 2005, Items 2 and 10(i).
194 The WIPO Journal
NotintroducingthePLTrequirement“filingbyreferencetoapreviouslyfiledapplication”(PLTart.5(7))
into the PCT seems reasonable because this requirement appears already to have become outdated by
advances in transmission technology and would no longer be regarded as a preferred option when filing
an international application.
The incorporation by reference into the PLT of so many standards prescribed by the PCT as to the form
and contents of international applications has not also resulted in the PCT itself being aligned with the
basic requirements of the PLT. Owing to this incomplete alignment, the relationship between these two
international patent law treaties has become a complex one.
In view of earlier amendments to the Regulations under the PCT which already “squeezed” some of
the articles of the PCT, it would have been possible to realise a better alignment between the PCT and the
PLT.Inparticular,mitigationofthecompulsorypresenceofclaimswhenfilinganinternationalapplication
inviewoftherequirementsinthePLTisdesirableandwouldhavebeenpossible.UsersofthePCTsystem
would welcomea better alignmentof at leastsome filing date relatedrequirementsand provisions dealing
with defects which may affect the filing date.
More than once the view has been expressed that the PCT articles would, at some stage, need to be
revised,becausethereisalimittothekindofchangeswhichcouldbeachievedbyamendingtheRegulations
under the PCT within the boundaries of the provisions of the PCT articles, and that the manner in which
particular changes needed to be implemented would depend on their nature.92
In addition, the Working
Group on Reform of the PCT extensively discussed the possibilities and consequences of drafting a
completely new treaty encompassing the PCT, the PLT and, possibly also, the Substantive Patent Law
Treaty.93
At present, all these seem far from realisation.
See, e.g., “Summary of the Session — Approach to Further Reform: Options for Revising the Treaty” (by the chair), Working Group on Reform
of the PCT, Document PCT/R/WG/3/5, 2002, Items 6–12, at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4554 [Accessed March 29,
See “Options for a Possible Revision of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)” (prepared by the International Bureau), Working Group on Reform
of the PCT, Document PCT/R/WG/3/3 (October 2002), at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4554 [Accessed March 29, 2011].
Filing date requirements under the Patent Cooperation Treaty 195
IP in Global Governance: A Venture in Critical
RecommendedWIPO Journal - 2010 Volume 1 Issue 2World Intellectual Property Organizat...* Towards a Flexible International Framework for the Protection of Geographi...WIPO Journal - 2012 Volume 4 Issue 1World Intellectual Property Organizat...* The Confucian Challenge to Intellectual Property Reforms * Intellectual Pr...WIPO Journal - 2014 Volume 5 Issue 2World Intellectual Property Organizat...The Identity of Geographical Indications and Their Relation to Traditional Kn...WIPO Journal - 2011 Volume 3 Issue 1World Intellectual Property Organizat...* ACTA and Its Complex Politics * Everything Old is New Again: The Developme...WIPO Journal - 2013 Volume 5 Issue 1World Intellectual Property Organizat...* Building the Ladder: Three Decades of Development of the Chinese Patent Sys...WIPO Journal - 2009 Issue 1World Intellectual Property Organizat...* The Global Intellectual Property Order and its Undetermined Future * The ...WIPO Journal - 2010 Volume 2 Issue 1World Intellectual Property Organizat...* Enforcement, Economics and Estimates * A Half Century of Research on Pate...WIPO Journal - 2012 Volume 3 Issue 2World Intellectual Property Organizat...* ACTA and Its Complex Politics * Everything Old is New Again: The Developme...WIPO Journal - 2014 Volume 6 Issue 1World Intellectual Property Organizat...Intellectual Property Geographies - Peter K. Yu Notes on a Geography of Glob...WIPO Journal - 2013 Volume 4 Issue 2World Intellectual Property Organizat...Articles: * Exclusive Ownership Versus Open Commons * Compulsory Licensing ...Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in CopyrightPatricia AufderheideIn the increasingly complex and combative arena of copyright in the digital a...America's FutureCharles Williams'Bodies can tell you a lot. There can be an eloquence about the dead. But you...The Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks (STLT) - Questions and AnswersWorld Intellectual Property Organizat...Questions and AnswersBurning the Ships: Transforming Your Company's Culture Through Intellectual Property StrategyMarshall PhelpsNow in paperback, the inside story of "the greatesttransformation of Microsof...Guide to WIPO Domain Name Dispute ResolutionWorld Intellectual Property Organizat...The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center is internationally recognized as th...Hague Yearly Review: International Registrations of Industrial DesignsWorld Intellectual Property Organizat...This publication provides statistical information on and analysis of the use ...Background Brief No. 7: Customary Law and Traditional KnowledgeWorld Intellectual Property Organizat...This brief explores the issues concerning customary law, traditional knowledg...The 22 Immutable Laws of BrandingAl RiesThis marketing classic has been expanded to include new commentary, new illus...The Intersection of Intellectual Property Law and the “Green” Movement: RIPL’s Green Issue 2010John Marshall Review of Intellectual ...Special symposium by leading lawyers and scholars on intellectual property la...Medical Monopoly: Intellectual Property Rights and the Origins of the Modern Pharmaceutical IndustryJoseph M. GabrielDuring much of the nineteenth century, physicians and pharmacists alike consi...Hague Yearly Review - 2012: International Registrations of Industrial DesignsWorld Intellectual Property Organizat...Facts and figures on the Hague System in 2011.Idea to Invention: What You Need to Know to Cash In on Your InspirationPatricia Nolan-BrownYou don’t have to be a mechanical genius to be an inventor. Anyone can invent...Intellectual Property: From Creation to Commercialisation: A Practical Guide for Innovators & ResearchersJohn P. Mc ManusFor many knowledge-intensive or technology-based start-up companies, the prof...Background Brief No. 9: Documentation of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural ExpressionsWorld Intellectual Property Organizat...Documentation of traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressi...Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to GatesAdrian JohnsSince the rise of Napster and other file-sharing services in its wake, most o...The Role of Customary Law in Access and Benefit-sharing and Traditional Knowledge Governance: Perspectives from Andean and Pacific Island CountriesWorld Intellectual Property Organizat...This paper provides an overview of the debate on customary laws and the outco...Intellectual Property and Folk, Arts and Cultural Festivals - A Practical GuideWorld Intellectual Property Organizat...This Guide provides general information about intellectual property (IP) and ...Background Brief N°4: Intellectual Property & Arts FestivalsWorld Intellectual Property Organizat...Effective intellectual property management is an important consideration for ...Background Brief N°3: Developing a National Strategy on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions, and Genetic ResourcesWorld Intellectual Property Organizat...This brief summarizes the legal, policy and operational issues that need to b...A Stronger Voice for Indigenous and Local Communities in WIPO's work on Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources: The WIPO Voluntary FundWorld Intellectual Property Organizat...Booklet nº 3 of a series dealing with intellectual property and genetic resou...Previous|NextPage 1 of 8Similar to WIPO Journal - 2011 Volume 2 Issue 2WIPO Journal - 2010 Volume 1 Issue 2World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)WIPO Journal - 2010 Volume 1 Issue 2WIPO Journal - 2012 Volume 4 Issue 1World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)WIPO Journal - 2012 Volume 4 Issue 1WIPO Journal - 2014 Volume 5 Issue 2World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)WIPO Journal - 2014 Volume 5 Issue 2WIPO Journal - 2011 Volume 3 Issue 1World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)WIPO Journal - 2011 Volume 3 Issue 1WIPO Journal - 2013 Volume 5 Issue 1World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)WIPO Journal - 2013 Volume 5 Issue 1WIPO Journal - 2009 Issue 1World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)WIPO Journal - 2009 Issue 1WIPO Journal - 2010 Volume 2 Issue 1World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)WIPO Journal - 2010 Volume 2 Issue 1WIPO Journal - 2012 Volume 3 Issue 2World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)WIPO Journal - 2012 Volume 3 Issue 2WIPO Journal - 2014 Volume 6 Issue 1World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)WIPO Journal - 2014 Volume 6 Issue 1WIPO Journal - 2013 Volume 4 Issue 2World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)WIPO Journal - 2013 Volume 4 Issue 2Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in CopyrightPatricia AufderheidePeter Jaszi, Reclaiming Fair UseAmerica's FutureCharles WilliamsDave A. Law, America's FutureThe Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks (STLT) - Questions and AnswersWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)The Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks (STLT) - Questions and AnswersBurning the Ships: Transforming Your Company's Culture Through Intellectual Property StrategyMarshall PhelpsDavid Kline, Burning the ShipsGuide to WIPO Domain Name Dispute ResolutionWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Guide to WIPO Domain Name Dispute ResolutionHague Yearly Review: International Registrations of Industrial DesignsWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Hague Yearly ReviewBackground Brief No. 7: Customary Law and Traditional KnowledgeWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Background Brief No. 7The 22 Immutable Laws of BrandingAl RiesLaura Ries, The 22 Immutable Laws of BrandingThe Intersection of Intellectual Property Law and the “Green” Movement: RIPL’s Green Issue 2010John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, The Intersection of Intellectual Property Law and the “Green” MovementMedical Monopoly: Intellectual Property Rights and the Origins of the Modern Pharmaceutical IndustryJoseph M. Gabriel, Medical MonopolyHague Yearly Review - 2012: International Registrations of Industrial DesignsWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Hague Yearly Review - 2012Idea to Invention: What You Need to Know to Cash In on Your InspirationPatricia Nolan-Brown, Idea to InventionIntellectual Property: From Creation to Commercialisation: A Practical Guide for Innovators & ResearchersJohn P. Mc Manus, Intellectual PropertyBackground Brief No. 9: Documentation of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural ExpressionsWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Background Brief No. 9Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to GatesAdrian Johns, PiracyThe Role of Customary Law in Access and Benefit-sharing and Traditional Knowledge Governance: Perspectives from Andean and Pacific Island CountriesWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)The Role of Customary Law in Access and Benefit-sharing and Traditional Knowledge GovernanceIntellectual Property and Folk, Arts and Cultural Festivals - A Practical GuideWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Intellectual Property and Folk, Arts and Cultural Festivals - A Practical GuideBackground Brief N°4: Intellectual Property & Arts FestivalsWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Background Brief N°4Background Brief N°3: Developing a National Strategy on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions, and Genetic ResourcesWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Background Brief N°3A Stronger Voice for Indigenous and Local Communities in WIPO's work on Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources: The WIPO Voluntary FundWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)A Stronger Voice for Indigenous and Local Communities in WIPO's work on Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources