<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Noto Sans";}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.level1, li.level1, div.level1
{mso-style-name:level_1;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.level2, li.level2, div.level2
{mso-style-name:level_2;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Choose a qualified foreign associate and trust their advice. If you wish, ask them why your Rule 4.17 declaration is defective. Execution requirements vary widely by country.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My experience has been that some countries are not parties to the Hague Convention on Apostilles
<a href="https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/apostille">
https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/apostille</a> or otherwise require an original, notarized copy. In such case, I expect your 4.17 would have to comply with those local rules and you would need a separate original for each
country that requires one.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also, in case Singapore is your country, it has a reservation for Rule 51bis
<a href="https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/reservations/res_incomp.html">https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/reservations/res_incomp.html</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">James Lake<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Pct <pct-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> <b>On Behalf Of
</b>Timothy Snowden via Pct<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 27, 2023 1:28 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Timothy Snowden via Pct <pct@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Timothy Snowden <timothy@thompsonpatentlaw.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Pct] Use of 4.17 declarations<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:red">[External Email]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p>In India, for example, this has been successfully tested apparently: <a href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6209b0dd-ca39-4a34-9d06-88ac115f4cd8">
Patents - Declaration under PCT Regulation 4.17(ii) is sufficient for ‘proof of right’ - Lexology</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 11/27/2023 3:19 PM, Timothy Snowden via Pct wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Rule 4.17 states that "<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="level1" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in;text-indent:15.0pt;background:#FCFCFC;box-sizing: border-box;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-thickness: initial;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:#393939">The request may, for the purposes of the national law applicable in one or more designated States, contain one or more of the following declarations, worded as prescribed by the
Administrative Instructions: ... <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="level2" style="margin:0in;text-indent:30.0pt;background:#FCFCFC;box-sizing: border-box;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-thickness: initial;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:#393939">(iii) a declaration as to the applicant’s entitlement, as at the international filing date, to claim priority of the earlier application, as referred to in <a href="https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r51bis.html#_51bis_1_a_iii" target="_self"><span style="color:#0059C6;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none">Rule
51<em><span style="font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif">bis</span></em>.1(a)(iii)</span></a>;"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Going to Rule 51.bis.1(a)(iii) reveals (underlining added for emphasis) that "<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:#393939;background:#FCFCFC">(a)
<u>Subject to </u></span><a href="https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r51bis.html#_51bis_2"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:#0059C6;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;background:#FCFCFC">Rule 51<em><span style="font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif">bis</span></em>.2</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:#393939;background:#FCFCFC">,
the national law applicable by the designated Office may, in accordance with </span><a href="https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a27.html"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:#0059C6;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;background:#FCFCFC;text-decoration:none">Article 27</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:#393939;background:#FCFCFC">,
require the applicant to furnish, in particular: ..."</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#393939;background:#FCFCFC">Rule 51.bis.2 states "</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;background:#FCFCFC"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:#393939">51<em><span style="font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in">bis</span></em>.2 <em><span style="font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in">Certain
Circumstances in Which Documents or Evidence May Not Be Required</span></em><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="level1" style="margin:0in;text-indent:15.0pt;background:#FCFCFC;box-sizing: border-box;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-thickness: initial;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px">
<a name="_51bis_2_a"></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:#393939">The designated Office shall not, unless it may reasonably doubt the veracity of the indications or declaration concerned, require any document or evidence:
...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="level1" style="margin:0in;text-indent:15.0pt;background:#FCFCFC;box-sizing: border-box;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-thickness: initial;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:#393939;background:#FCFCFC">(ii) relating to the applicant’s entitlement, as at the international filing date, to apply for and be granted a patent (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif;color:#393939"><a href="https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r51bis.html#_51bis_1_a_ii"><span style="color:#0059C6;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;background:#FCFCFC;text-decoration:none">Rule
51<em><span style="font-family:"Noto Sans",sans-serif">bis</span></em>.1(a)(ii)</span></a><span style="background:#FCFCFC">), if a declaration as to that matter, in accordance with </span><a href="https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r4.html#_4_17_ii"><span style="color:#0059C6;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;background:#FCFCFC;text-decoration:none">Rule
4.17(ii)</span></a><span style="background:#FCFCFC">, is contained in the request or is submitted directly to the designated Office;"</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>To respond, I would think you could politely point the patent office of interest back to your Declaration (they may not have paid attention to them), and note that these documents were provided under Rule 51.bis.1(a)(iii), and that no request has been received
from the Office under Rule 51.bis.2, and so the requirements are satisfied.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>On 11/27/2023 1:03 PM, Carl Oppedahl via Pct wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">A listserv member asks to post anonymously ...<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">We filed PCT Rule 4.17 declarations in our PCT regarding the Applicant’s entitlement to claim priority and to apply for and be granted a patent in the international application.</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Now we are filing national phase applications in some countries that are requesting Deed of Assignment documents to be notarized and/or legalized.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Wasn’t the point of filing the Declarations in the PCT to avoid having to jump through these hoops in the national phase? What is the proper response to a request for these documents?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>