<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
I've had to deal with this issue in the context of Chinese/U.S. law (Chinese inventors in China and US inventors in the U.S.). In that case, I drafted the patent application and had all the inventors review it. Once they approved it, I sent it to a Chinese
law firm who translated it and filed a request with CNIPA for a Chinese filing license (I believe it's called a security clearance). The Chinese firm did not file a Chinese patent application. </div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
With the Chinese security clearance in hand, I then filed the U.S. patent application. Upon receiving the filing receipt granting the foreign filing license, the Chinese law firm filed a Chinese application claiming priority to the U.S. patent application.
Technically, there was no need to file the Chinese application at that time (could have waited and filed a PCT and entered the Chinese national phase), but that was the arrangement between the two parties who collaborated to develop the technology.</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Regarding U.S. law, there are two things to keep in mind. The first is that there are export laws that are separate from patent laws. These are things like EAR, ITAR, etc. These prevent U.S. companies from exporting certain technology (usually military, nuclear,
etc.). These are the laws that prevent companies from collaborating with other people/companies outside the U.S. or foreign nationals inside the U.S. As long as a U.S. company is not violating these laws, they can collaborate with foreign companies as much
as they want including developing new technology/inventions. Most companies who are subject to export restrictions are well aware that they are subject to export restrictions and act accordingly.</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
The second is that U.S. patent law requires an FFL to <b><i>file a foreign patent application
</i></b>for an invention that was <b><i>made in the U.S.</i></b> A U.S. company does not need an FFL to collaborate with a company or person on the technology. It needs it to file a foreign patent application.</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
I was able to draft the patent application and have the inventors in China and U.S. review it is because the subject matter of the application is not export restricted by the U.S. or China (I relied on the Chinese company and law firm to confirm Chinese law).
The Chinese law firm was able to use the draft application to obtain a Chinese security clearance because they were not filing a patent application. Once I filed the U.S. application and received an FFL, then the Chinese firm was able to file the Chinese patent
application. I probably could have done the reverse (get a U.S. FFL first, file in China and get a security clearance, and then file in the U.S.; I might do this next time given that CNIPA takes its sweet time deciding security clearance requests).</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; color: rgb(31, 56, 100);"><b>Scott Nielson</b></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; color: black;">801-660-4400</span></p>
</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Richard Straussman via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 13, 2024 7:38 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Richard Straussman <rstraussman@weitzmanip.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Patentpractice] Foreign Filing License Incongruity Question</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>All,<br>
<br>
I am wracking my brain over this one and am looking for the collective wisdom of the brilliant members of the ListServ.<br>
<br>
Assume that an invention is jointly collaboratively developed and invented by two persons, one located in and a resident of, the U.S., and the other located in and a resident of India.
<br>
<br>
Both countries require a foreign filing license before the technology can be "exported." If the U.S. is to be the place of first filing, then one needs to get an Indian FFL before that filing. However, in order to do so, the Indian Patent Office needs the
application to review it. But sending it to them theoretically violates the need for a U.S. FFL. Likewise, if India is to be the place of first filing, then you need a U.S. FFL before you can file there, but that would violate the Indian requirement.<br>
<br>
Assume that first filing a PCT application is NOT an option (irrespective of whether or not that solves the problem), how have folks in such a situation reconciled the issue?<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance!<br>
<br>
<div class="x_moz-signature">-- <br>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
span.x_c16
{color:#800000}
span.x_c15
{font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;
font-size:8pt}
span.x_c14
{color:#800000;
font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;
font-size:8pt;
text-decoration:underline}
span.x_c13
{color:#0000FF;
font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;
font-size:8pt;
text-decoration:underline}
span.x_c12
{color:#800000;
font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;
font-size:8pt}
span.x_c11
{font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;
font-size:8pt}
span.x_c10
{color:#656565;
font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;
font-size:10pt}
span.x_c9
{color:#800000;
font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;
font-size:10pt}
span.x_c8
{font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial}
span.x_c7
{color:#989898;
font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;
font-size:8pt}
span.x_c6
{color:#656565;
font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;
font-size:8pt}
span.x_c5
{font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;
font-size:10pt}
span.x_c4
{color:#656565;
font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;
font-size:11pt}
span.x_c3
{color:#000080;
font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial}
span.x_c2
{font-size:8pt}
span.x_c1
{color:#0000FF;
font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;
font-size:12pt}
-->
</style><span class="x_c1"><strong>Richard
Straussman</strong></span><span class="x_c3"><span class="x_c2"><strong><br>
</strong></span></span><strong><span class="x_c4">Senior Counsel</span><span class="x_c5"><strong><br>
</strong></span><span class="x_c6">Registered Patent Attorney</span><span class="x_c5"><br>
</span></strong><span class="x_c6">Member NY, NJ & CT Bars</span><span class="x_c5"><br>
</span><span class="x_c7"><strong>. . . . . . . . . . . . . .</strong></span> <span class="x_c8">
</span><span class="x_c5"><br>
</span><span class="x_c9"><strong>Weitzman Law Offices, LLC</strong></span><span class="x_c16"><span class="x_c5"><br>
</span><span class="x_c9"><strong>Intellectual Property Law</strong></span><span class="x_c9"><br>
</span><span class="x_c4">425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 401 (PLEASE NOTE THE SUITE CHANGE)</span><span class="x_c5"><br>
</span><span class="x_c4">Roseland, NJ 07068</span><span class="x_c11"><br>
</span><span class="x_c12"><strong>direct line</strong></span> <span class="x_c6">
973.403.9943<br>
</span><span class="x_c12"><strong>main</strong></span> <span class="x_c6">973.403.9940<br>
</span><span class="x_c12"><strong>fax</strong></span><span class="x_c12"></span>
<span class="x_c6">973.403.9944</span><span class="x_c11"><br>
</span><span class="x_c12"><strong>e-mail</strong></span><span class="x_c6"></span>
<span class="x_c13"><a class="x_moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rstraussman@weitzmanip.com">rstraussman@weitzmanip.com</a></span><span class="x_c11"><br>
<br>
</span><span class="x_c14"><strong><a href="http://www.weitzmanip.com/" originalsrc="http://www.weitzmanip.com/" shash="exu18X2sxuaZ8ZVSsORRMWefhdZDbYDPe6extFt9hGc+d+vURpHedSprZbUKFbjlb7FLhklxjQB/WW1tnCtEjehpjnG32aOX27O1Y7jb7DANNF7PqaUk84On65Xi5qsJ0jFPTl7jaV/ILBqSMrxTF6RhAS/svmkjo5Ra8DO52lw=" class="x_moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.weitzmanip.com</a><br>
</strong></span><span class="x_c15"><br>
</span><br>
<br>
<br>
</span></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>