Skip Navigation

  1. Acerca de Nosotros
    1. Visión General
    2. Historia
    3. Oficinas
  2. Nuestra Experiencia
    1. Áreas de Trabajo
      1. Patentes
      2. Marcas
      3. Derecho de Autor
      4. Derecho Corporativo y Mercantil
      5. Litigio de Propiedad Intelectual y Resolución Alternativa de Disputas
      6. Práctica Regulatoria
      7. Otorgamiento de Licencias, Transferencia de Tecnología y Franquicias
      8. Anti-Piratería, Anti-Falsificación & Aplicación
    2. Grupos de la Industria
      1. Grupo de Abogados en Medios, Deportes y Entretenimiento
      2. Grupo de Abogados e Ingenieros en Ciencias de la Vida
  3. Nuestra Gente
    1. Socios
      1. Sergio L. Olivares, Sr. † (1931-2010)
      2. Sergio L. Olivares, Jr.
      3. Luis C. Schmidt
      4. César Ramos, Jr.
      5. Antonio Belaunzarán
      6. Gustavo A. Alcocer
      7. Alejandro Luna
      8. Alonso Camargo
      9. Daniel Sánchez
    2. Asociados (A - M)
      1. Osvaldo Amaral
      2. Armando Arenas
      3. Sofía Arroyo
      4. Guillermo Ballesteros
      5. Abraham Diaz
      6. Georgina Flores
      7. Pedro Herrera
    3. Asociados (N - Z)
      1. Mauricio Narváez
      2. Víctor Ramírez
      3. Sergio Rangel
      4. Maria del Carmen Sada
      5. Juan Luis Serrano
      6. Guillermo Treviño
    4. Abogados / Ingenieros
      1. Emilio Albarrán
      2. Agustín Azcatl
      3. Alejandra Badillo
      4. Ignacio Burgoa
      5. Fernando Calderón
      6. Martha Celis
      7. Erwin Cruz
      8. Fernanda Díaz
      9. Maria Fenton
      10. Luz Elena Elías
      11. 12 more items...
    5. Administración de la firma
    6. Directorio
  4. Conocimiento & Recursos
    1. Artículos y Estudios de Casos
      1. Artículos sobre Marcas
        1. Errores en las solicitudes de marcas
        2. La Suprema Corte: todo inidividuo puede registrar una marca
        3. Use requirements
        4. Approach to composite marks changed, again
        5. Life Sciences Handbook 2011 - Country Q&A
        6. Mexico should accept secondary meaning
        7. Getting the Deal Through - Trademarks 2011
        8. Pharmaceutical Trademarks 2010/2011 - A Global Guide
        9. No legal basis for banning names derived from INNs
        10. How Latin America tackles cutting-edge IP issues
        11. 45 more items...
      2. Artículos sobre Patentes
        1. Ampliación de la Protección de Diseños Industriales
        2. Mexican Linkage Gazette April 2011
        3. Mexico issues regulations to approve biologic drugs
        4. Latin America Roundtable
        5. New regulations pending
        6. The International Comparative Guide
        7. Marketing authorization for pharmaceutical
        8. Approval of follow-on biologics in Mexico
        9. Patent Prosecution Highway in Mexico
        10. Life Sciences Handbook 2011 - Country Q&A
        11. 36 more items...
      3. Artículos sobre Derecho de Autor
        1. Publicidad en redes sociales
        2. Technology challenges digital rights
        3. Exceptions to copyright protection and the permitted uses of copyright works in the hi-tech and digital sectors
        4. Derechos sobre producción audiovisual
        5. How Latin America tackles cutting-edge IP issues
        6. Copyright Litigation 2010
        7. Legislation and enforcement - Copyrights 2010
        8. Valuing folklore
        9. Protecting novel ideas
        10. Mexico's fair use balancing act
        11. 97 more items...
      4. Artículos sobre Derecho Corporativo
        1. Mexico issues Personal Data Protection Rules
        2. A practical cross-border
        3. New registry for security interests
        4. The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Merger Control 2011
        5. The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Merger Control 2010
        6. Due diligence issues to consider in M&A
        7. Income expectations in licensing
        8. The reasons for valuation
        9. Amendments proposed to franchise regulation
      5. Artículos sobre Litigio y RAD
        1. Scope of new specialised courts widened
        2. Reform of preliminary injunctions
        3. Mexican Patent Office excludes Formulation Patents from Linkage Gazette
        4. Mexico gets ready to approve biocomparable drugs
        5. Mexico's hotel for the stars highlights power in the name
        6. Supreme Court upholds the worth of formulation patents
        7. Getting the Deal Through - Patents 2010
        8. Getting the Deal Through Trademarks 2010
        9. Trademark enforcement
        10. Venues for appealing IMPI decisions
        11. 15 more items...
      6. Artículos sobre Derecho Regulatorio
        1. Recientes enmiendas a la Ley Federal de Protección al Consumidor
        2. Enmiendas en la Ley Federal de Protección al Consumidor
        3. Mexico issues Personal Data Protection Rules
        4. New Regulations Pending
        5. Marketing authorization for pharmaceutical products to foreign applicants
        6. Data Package Exclusivity (DPE)
        7. Supreme Court upholds the worth of formulation patents
        8. Pharmaceutical trademarks
        9. Framework for biotherapeutic products established
        10. Pharmaceutical Advertising 2009
        11. 4 more items...
      7. Artículos sobre Licencias y Transferencia de Tecnología
        1. Creating a secure franchise system
      8. Artículos sobre Anti-piratería y Anti-falsificación
        1. New register against counterfeits
        2. Beat the counterfeiters in Mexico
        3. Battling counterfeits through Customs
        4. Getting the Deal Through Trademarks 2010
        5. Enforcing plant variety rights in Mexico
        6. Pharmaceutical Trademarks 2009
        7. Internet Issues
        8. Anti-counterfeiting 2009
        9. Vegetal variety rights enforced
        10. New Customs rules lead to seizures
        11. 4 more items...
      9. Artículos en relación con Medios, Deportes y Entretenimiento
        1. Publicidad en redes sociales
        2. Whither Rental Rights?
        3. Improved protection for personalities
      10. Artículos en relación con Ciencias de la Vida
        1. Latin America Roundtable
        2. New regulations pending
        3. The International Comparative
        4. Approval of follow-on biologics in Mexico
        5. Global Pharmaceutical Linkage Regulations:
        6. Life Sciences Handbook 2011 - Country Q&A
        7. Supreme Court upholds the worth of formulation patents
        8. Repercussions expected on medicine advertising campaign in Mexico
        9. Framework for biotherapeutic products established
        10. Pharmaceutical Trademarks 2009
        11. 1 more item...
    2. Noticias
      1. Intellectual Property: Past & Future
      2. Iniciativa de ley para reducir la vigencia de patentes de medicamentos
      3. Entrevista a Alejandro Luna sobre "La Innovación y biotecnología"
      4. México firma el Acuerdo Comercial Anti-falsificación (ACTA)
      5. Modificaciones a la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual
      6. Se realizan enmiendas a la Ley Federal de Protección al Consumidor
    3. Gacetas
      1. Mexican Linkage Gazette March 2013
      2. Mexican Linkage Gazette December 2012
      3. Mexican Linkage Gazette November 2012
      4. Mexican Linkage Gazette December 2011
      5. Mexican Linkage Gazette April 2011
  5. Oficinas
  6. Eventos
  7. Contacto

Español » Conocimiento & Recursos » Artículos y Estudios de Casos » Artículos sobre Derecho de Autor » An introduction to the PCT

An introduction to the PCT

por Luis C. Schmidt
Socio
Managing Intellectual Property, April 2006
The patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) was conceived with the purpose of responding to a problem that the traditional patents system posed. The right of priority is one of the fundamentals of the Paris Convention, as it grants to patent applicants located in countries that are members of the treaty the chance to file applications in other member states, within 12 months of the filing date, without losing the right to get a patent.
Patent applicants generally claim priority and other rights in the Paris Convention. However, time has revealed the need for the traditional patent system to adapt to new trends and the challenges imposed by globalization. There is simply no doubt that applicants look for more certainty in their expectations of obtaining patents in multiple jurisdictions.
The PCT was designated to improve the rights of the Paris Convention. As its name suggests, the PCT has set a mechanism of international cooperation, coordinated by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), to rationalize and simplify the filing of patent applications, under the formula of one application and one search and preliminary examination. All the foregoing comes within the framework of an “International Phase” that leads to a “National Phase”. This instance is characterized by the filing of applications before the national or regional offices of the member states.
The National Phase comprises two proceedings that are independent from each other, within a Chapter I and Chapter II and that are different in a technical aspect that is fundamental: Chapter I refers to an International Search (known by its initial ISR), while Chapter II is referenced to a so-called International Preliminary Examination (IPE).
Chapter I start by the filing of an International Search that would be generally preceded by a priority claimed to the Receiving Office (RO) and by the payment of three fees (international fee, search fee and fee for the transmission to the RO). Patent applicants can choose one Administration of International Search (ISA). The ISA has to perform the search and to report within 16 months of the filing date of the priority application. The applicant can use the ISR to analyze whether to continue with the process, by the filing of applications before the Designated Offices (OODD) and in that event, making whatever modifications that the applicant regards to be appropriate, to overcome the prior art that the ISA has cited in the ISR. Before the amendment of the PCT, the National Phase had to start between the 18th month, corresponding to the International Publication, and the 20th month.
According to chapter II of the PCT, the applicant appoints an Administrator for the International Preliminary Examination (IPEA), to render an IPE, three months after the ISR and pay the fee for the IPE. Once the proceeding has started, the IPEA generates a written opinion and eventually modifies the application as originally drafted, for adjusting it to the recommendation of the IPEA. The IPER is an official communication of the outcome of a patentability examination, made by the IPEA that is forwarded to the Designated Offices to begin the National Phase. The National Phase of Chapter II needs to start 30 months after the priority date.

The Amendment of Article 22 (I) of PCT

Effective as of April 1 2002, the PCT Assembly increased from 20 to 30 months the term of Article 22 (1) for the entrance of an international application to the National Phase in accordance with Chapter I of the PCT. The modification was inspired by the idea to unify the term of entrance to the International Phase, irrespective of which chapter an application has followed. In addition to the convergence of terms, the Assembly promoted the reform, with the purpose of extending the entrance to the National Phase.
Applications felt satisfied with the amendments, to the extent that the proceedings under Chapter I soon overtook those of Chapter II. The reasons are obvious: the renovated proceedings of Chapter I. The time period to enter into National Phase was extended to 30 months, the same time as in Chapter II, but without an IPE and an examination fee. Accordingly, applicants would have to wait to enter into the National Phase taking advantage of the time to investigate and analyze the state of the art and the commercial expectations of the invention.

The EISPE System

The national and regional offices have noticed that the number of PCT applications that they receive has increased, and as a result so has the need to perform a greater number of patentability examinations without the benefit of an International Preliminary Examination Report. In 2004 the PCT Assembly made changes to the PCT Rules to set a mechanism that it would call International Search and Preliminary Examination Reinforced (EISPE). By virtue of the EISPE, the ISA are required to elaborate an opinion in writing for each ISR, which is called International Preliminary Report on Patentability (IPRP).
The IPRP is an opinion in writing issued by the ISA with comments of the ISR and that can be utilized for both Chapter I and Chapter II proceedings, although in a different fashion. The Preliminary Inform on Patentability of Chapter I gives support to the national and regional offices, and minimizes the workload triggered by the PCT. The Preliminary Inform of Chapter II is the basis to elaborate the IPER and accordingly is used for backing the work of the IPEAS.
The EISPE reduces the differences between Chapter I and Chapter II. However, it does not extinguish these differences as Chapter I continues to be oriented to the search of the ISR, whereas Chapter II relates to the examination by the IPEA. Under Chapter I, there is no dialogue between the applicant and the examiner of the ISA. Modifications can also not be made before the issuance of the Preliminary Inform.
The EISPE triggered some changes in the timing of the proceeding in Chapter II. With the amended rules, applicants can request an IPE within three months after having received the Preliminary Inform and the ISR or 22 months after the priority date, if it happens later.
Some members of the PCT (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Sweden, United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda) notified to WIPO that they would not apply the EISPE system. In these countries the period of 19 months to file an IPE continues to apply. In those cases in which there is no applicant for an IPE within 19 months, the National Phase must commence in 20 months.

Mexico and EISPE

The PCT entered into force in Mexico on January 1, 1995, since then the PCT National Phase became the principal source of applications of the Mexican Office, whose official name is the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI). According to statistics that IMPI has published, PCT applications have been substantially increasing. In a general context the number of PCT applications that were filed in Mexico in 2005 represented 8.9% of the world total of PCT applications that is 132,500 filings. On the total of PCT applications filed in the world in 2005 only 104 pertain to Mexicans, which is proportionally low in regard to the number of applications filed by nationals of other emerging economies.
Mexico subscribed to the amendment of Article 22 of the PCT to receive National Phase applications by Chapter I, since April 2002, IMPI was one of the National Offices that resented the increase of applications by Chapter I, mainly because in 1995, the year that PCT came into effect in Mexico, IMPI adapted its structure and internal organization to receive the majority of Chapter II applications. In the year 2004, Mexico welcomed the EISPE system and a little after that, it started receiving the Preliminary Informs elaborated by the ISA. Although it is true that the EISPE system is still young, in the opinion of IMPI the benefit of Preliminary Examination Reports. In any event, IMPI continues to practice the patentability examination locally.