[Pct] Paris Convention Art. 4(C)(4)

Thu Nov 23 12:17:17 EST 2023

“An argument that could get me into trouble is that if a person was to look at the RO101 of PCT1 - it that was even made available to the public in a withdrawn PCT case (note I did not add a reference to previously filed cases in the first paragraph of PCT1) - you could argue that PCT1 was not the first filing, in which case Prov will be prior art. But keep in mind also that provisionals remain confidential unless they are the basis of a priority claim, and my view is that the original priority claim of PCT1 is void if PCT1 is withdrawn”.

>From a European perspective:-

  *   If you claim priority from PCT1, then there will be a priority document required for PCT2.
  *   The RO101 of PCT1 would be visible as part of the priority document.
  *   It would be immediately visible that a first application [Prov] served as priority basis for PCT1, although not visible what Prov disclosed.
  *   If priority ever became important, PCT1 would not be considered the first filing for whatever matter was in Prov.
  *   Priority from PCT1 would only be valid for anything new in PCT1 that was not in Prov.
  *   Prov will not be prior art, it is just a factor that determines whether priority is properly claimed or not.
  *   Withdrawal of PCT1 has no effect whatsoever on the fact that priority from Prov was claimed.

[Armstrong Teasdale]
JIM BOFF
 |
PARTNER
DIRECT: +44 20 7822 8877<tel:+44%2020%207822%208877>
OFFICE: 38‑43 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE
 |
PHONE: +44 20 7539 7272<tel:+442075397272>
jboff at atllp.co.uk<mailto:jboff at atllp.co.uk>
 |
atllp.com<https://armstrongteasdale.com/>
Phillips & Leigh combined with Armstrong Teasdale LLP, a 120-year-old U.S. law firm that has forged long-term relationships with clients large and small around the globe.

From: Pct <pct-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Andrew Berks via Pct
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 2:30 PM
To: pct at oppedahl-lists.com
Cc: Andrew Berks <andrew at berksiplaw.com>
Subject: Re: [Pct] Paris Convention Art. 4(C)(4)

[Resending - I sent this on Nov. 20 but it does not appear it was posted]

Scott is correct that in my scenario, there was a provisional (this may have been in an offline discussion)  Here is the timeline:
Provisional (Prov) filed 2022-03-30
PCT1 filed 2023-03-30, claimed priority to ("considered withdrawn")
PCT2 filed 2024-03-30 - not yet filed. The plan is to treat PCT1 as a priority filing in the event I cannot revive PCT1.

Scott argues here 4C4 applies in my case because PCT1 claimed priority to the provisional, so I cannot just swap out PCT1 as the new "first application" because it has been withdrawn.

Let me paraphrase 4C4 again u
sing the provisional: A subsequent application (PCT1) concerning the same subject as a previous first application (Prov) ... shall be considered as the first application, of which the filing date shall be the starting point of the period of priority, if, at the time of filing the subsequent application (PCT1), the said previous application (Prov) has been withdrawn, etc... and if it has not yet served as a basis for claiming a right of priority. The previous application (Prov) may not thereafter serve as a basis for claiming a right of priority.

When read this way, 4C4 reinforces the concept that a patent application that was "killed" - withdrawn etc and not used for a priority claim -  can be disregarded and treated as if it had never been filed. So an applicant can file a subsequent application on the same subject matter and start the right of priority clock. This is something we do all the time - file provisionals and let them go for one reason or another without fear that the provisional will surface as prior art.

In my case, the subsequent application will be PCT2 and the first application will be PCT1. PCT1 will serve as a priority application, so 4C4 won't apply. I understand that I am giving up the provisional 2022-03-30 date here. I am not trying to keep the 2022 date, since that would reach back two years which exceeds the right of priority which is only one year. So my PCT2 priority claim will only be to PCT1.

Note also Bodenhausen comports with my analysis. Bodenhausen says the reason this provision was adopted at the Lisbon conference in 1958 was because first patent filings (what we now call provisionals) were often crude - "the first application may be made in a hurry ... [and] does not adequately represent the applicant's intentions. Failing a special provision regulating this matter the applicant would be unable to replace his application by a better one without losing the right of priority, because the said application would not be the first concerning the same subject." (Bodenhsausen p. 45 note b).

An argument that could get me into trouble is that if a person was to look at the RO101 of PCT1 - it that was even made available to the public in a withdrawn PCT case (note I did not add a reference to previously filed cases in the first paragraph of PCT1) - you could argue that PCT1 was not the first filing, in which case Prov will be prior art. But keep in mind also that provisionals remain confidential unless they are the basis of a priority claim, and my view is that the original priority claim of PCT1 is void if PCT1 is withdrawn.

Andrew Berks, Ph.D., J.D. | Partner

Patent Attorney and IP Licensing

FRESH IP PLC

28 Liberty St 6th Fl

New York NY 10005 (US)

Main office: 11710 Plaza America Drive, Suite 2000, Reston, VA 20190 USA
e: andrew at freship.com<mailto:andrew at freship.com> | w: www.freship.com<https://urlsand.esvalabs.com/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freship.com%2F&e=b2b682c0&h=c13f7a6d&f=y&p=y> berksiplaw.com<https://urlsand.esvalabs.com/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fberksiplaw.com%2F&e=b2b682c0&h=a2b8b71e&f=y&p=y>

Direct: +1-845-558-7245

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 11:01 AM <pct-request at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:pct-request at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 00:56:25 +0000
From: Scott Nielson <scnielson at outlook.com<mailto:scnielson at outlook.com>>
To: "pct at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:pct at oppedahl-lists.com>" <pct at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:pct at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Subject: Re: [Pct] Paris Convention Art. 4(C)(4)
Message-ID:
        <SJ0PR11MB65751576B3C1C0981095B0C9B0B4A at SJ0PR11MB6575.namprd11.prod.outlook.com<mailto:SJ0PR11MB65751576B3C1C0981095B0C9B0B4A at SJ0PR11MB6575.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

My apologies. I inadvertently sent the previous email before it was complete (using a different keyboard)

In the scenario you described previously, there were three applications you were considering: (1) US Provisional (filed, now expired), (2) PCT1 (filed, claims priority to US Prov; current status is withdrawn), and (3) PCT2 (filing status unknown but would be filed within one year of PCT1, claim foreign priority to PCT 1).

The Paris Convention allows you to claim priority to the "first application" if the subsequent application is filed within a year of the first application. The problem you have is that the first application is the US provisional and it is more than since it was filed.

Article 4 allows you to change the first application to a later application but only if the applicable conditions are satisfied?i.e., the original first application (the US provisional) is abandoned, withdrawn, etc. without having served as the basis of a priority claim. Unfortunately, this is not applicable in this case because PCT1 claimed priority to the US provisional. You cannot just swap out PCT1 as the new "first application" because it has been withdrawn.

Scott Nielson

801-660-4400

________________________________
From: Pct <pct-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:pct-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Andrew Berks via Pct <pct at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:pct at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2023 5:00 PM
To: pct at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:pct at oppedahl-lists.com> <pct at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:pct at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Andrew Berks <andrew at berksiplaw.com<mailto:andrew at berksiplaw.com>>
Subject: [Pct] Paris Convention Art. 4(C)(4)

This provision of the Paris Convention (PC) was recently pointed out to me, because I had a situation where I filed a PCT application (PCT1) that was withdrawn involuntarily (the details are irrelevant to this discussion). A potential way to recover from this situation would be to file a second PCT application (PCT2) on the anniversary of the PCT1 filing date.

This should be a good plan under the PC Art. 4(A)<https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/288514#P83_6610<https://urlsand.esvalabs.com/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wipo.int%2Fwipolex%2Fen%2Ftext%2F288514%23P83_6610&e=b2b682c0&h=a3ebbe67&f=y&p=y>>: its a duly filed regular national patent application, and it should give me a right to priority "whatever may be the subsequent fate of the application" (which in my case, PCT1 was withdrawn).

But Art. 4(C)(4) seems to directly contradict this: 4(C)(4) states that a subsequent application (here PCT2) shall be considered as the first application, of which the filing date shall be the starting point of the period of priority, if, at the time of filing the subsequent application, the previous application (here PCT1) has been withdrawn, abandoned, or refused, without having been laid open to public inspection and without leaving any rights outstanding. The previous application may not thereafter serve as a basis for claiming a right of priority. (paraphrased slightly and emphasis added).

The use of the word "shall" in 4(C)(4) seems to directly contradict 4(A). Bodenhausen states that the phrase in 4(A)(3) "whatever may be the subsequent fate of the application" means the right of priority subsists when the first application is withdrawn, abandoned or rejected - which is what happened to PCT1.

So a plain reading of 4(C)(4) seems to mean that PCT2 cannot in any circumstance (use of the word "shall") claim priority to PCT1 if PCT1 is withdrawn, abandoned or rejected. So what happened to the "subsequent fate" language?

The only solution that makes sense here is that 4(C)(4) is optional. That means that a PCT2 can optionally disregard a PCT1 if the conditions of being withdrawn, etc. are met, because PCT1 is a dead patent application, but PCT2 can still claim priority to PCT1, regardless of the subsequent fate of PCT1, if the applicant so chooses.

Andrew H. Berks, Ph.D., J.D.

Partner, Fresh IP PLC

New York, New York 10004 (US)

andrew at freship.com<mailto:andrew at freship.com><mailto:andrew at freship.com<mailto:andrew at freship.com>>

Voice/text: +1-845-558-7245

Toll free: +1-866-913-3499

Mailing address: 11710 Plaza America Drive Suite 2000, Reston, VA 20190 (US)

freship.com<https://urlsand.esvalabs.com/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffreship.com&e=b2b682c0&h=b4d3b619&f=y&p=y><https://freship.com/<https://urlsand.esvalabs.com/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ffreship.com%2F&e=b2b682c0&h=f9dfd2ca&f=y&p=y>>, berksiplaw.com<https://urlsand.esvalabs.com/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fberksiplaw.com&e=b2b682c0&h=9706d905&f=y&p=y><https://berksiplaw.com/<https://urlsand.esvalabs.com/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fberksiplaw.com%2F&e=b2b682c0&h=a2b8b71e&f=y&p=y>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/andyberks/<https://urlsand.esvalabs.com/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fandyberks%2F&e=b2b682c0&h=6e514465&f=y&p=y>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/pct_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231120/b34cef81/attachment-0001.htm<https://urlsand.esvalabs.com/?u=http%3A%2F%2Foppedahl-lists.com%2Fpipermail%2Fpct_oppedahl-lists.com%2Fattachments%2F20231120%2Fb34cef81%2Fattachment-0001.htm&e=b2b682c0&h=620ee39d&f=y&p=y>>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

Pct mailing list
Pct at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:Pct at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/pct_oppedahl-lists.com<https://urlsand.esvalabs.com/?u=http%3A%2F%2Foppedahl-lists.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpct_oppedahl-lists.com&e=b2b682c0&h=814ff732&f=y&p=y>

------------------------------

End of Pct Digest, Vol 1, Issue 8
*********************************
********** PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL**********
This transmission and any attached files are privileged, confidential or otherwise the exclusive property of the intended recipient, Armstrong Teasdale LLP or its subsidiaries. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us immediately by email (admin at atllp.com<mailto:admin at atllp.com>) or by telephone (+1 800.243.5070) and promptly destroy the original transmission and its attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Armstrong Teasdale LLP or its subsidiaries shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. Armstrong Teasdale LLP and its subsidiaries may monitor email traffic data. Please read our Global Privacy Policy<https://www.armstrongteasdale.com/privacy> to find out how Armstrong Teasdale LLP and its subsidiaries process personal information.

Armstrong Teasdale LLP is a Missouri-registered limited liability partnership organised under the laws of the State of Missouri, USA. The London office of Armstrong Teasdale LLP is operated by Armstrong Teasdale Limited, a private limited company registered in England and Wales (Registration No. 08879988), that is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA No. 657002). The registered office of Armstrong Teasdale Limited is 38-43 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE. Please review our International Legal Notices<https://www.armstrongteasdale.com/legal-notices>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/pct_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231123/da29ad44/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image937580.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1295 bytes
Desc: image937580.gif
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/pct_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231123/da29ad44/attachment.gif>