The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) is an initiative which provides a means of significantly accelerating examination of your patent application if examination work has already been conducted at another patent office.
Under the PPH program, if the claims of your application have been found to be acceptable by a first patent office, you may request accelerated examination of a corresponding application at a second office. The PPH is a procedure whereby patent offices can make use of relevant work already conducted by another office when conducting the patent examination.
PCT-PPH allows favorable claims from PCT which nominate EPO for search to be considered under PPH.
With effect from 1 July 2017, MyIPO starts a pilot PPH/PCT-PPH programs with the Ruropean Patent Office (EPO):
i). MyIPO-EPO PPH pilot program
ii). EPO-MyIPO PPH pilot program
The pilot program will run for three years.
Patents, trademarks and copyright are integral parts of intellectual property that form intangible assets in our daily life. IP matters from Malaysia and the world are shared here.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Monday, September 18, 2017
Malaysia Patent Information in Patentscope
According to WIPO, the national patent information of Brunei, Cambodia, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand are now available in WIPO’s global patent search system PATENTSCOPE, since 30 Aug 2017. This brings to 51 the number of national/regional offices whose data is available in the PATENTSCOPE Search System and to over 65,000,000 the total number of records.
I have conducted a search for Malaysia patent information in Patentscope. Bibliography and patent abstracts are listed for patent applications and patent granted in Malaysia. Full description, claims and drawings are not available.
I have conducted a search for Malaysia patent information in Patentscope. Bibliography and patent abstracts are listed for patent applications and patent granted in Malaysia. Full description, claims and drawings are not available.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Businesses using trademarks contribute 30 pct to Malaysia's economy
Trademark-intensive businesses in Malaysia generated 30 per cent direct and 60 per cent indirect benefits to the economy, said International Trademark Association (INTA).
INTA chief representative of Asia-Pacific Seth Hays cited the latest study, conducted from 2012 to 2015, by Frontier Economics, highlighting trademark-intensive activities contribute technological innovation and international business growth.
When asked on the 30 per cent direct and 60 per cent indirect contributions to Malaysia’s economy, Hays explained when trademark-intensive activities are extensively promoted within the business community, government and consuming public, it results in immense cross sectoral economic growth.
"Trademark-intensive industries in Malaysia comprised 55 per cent of the country's share of exports, including manufacturing of computers, electronics and related equipment, which accounted for about 19 per cent of total manufacturing value-add,” he said.
Hays was speaking in a media briefing here today, after presenting ‘The Economic Contributions of Trademark-intensive Industries in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand’ report.
Also present were Shook Lin & Bok deputy managing partner Michael Soo, MyIPO deputy director general Zulkarnain Muhammad and MyIPO assistant director general Azahar Abdul Razab.
"In terms of employment, output, and value-added, workers' share of workforce represented 24 per cent of total employment," Hays said.
Soo concurred and said trademark registration, brand development and enforcement of intellectual property protection will continue its significance as Malaysia embrace a knowledge-based digital economy.
Soo highlighted homegrown brands trademarks that are growing in brand value globally include Petronas, Maybank, CIMB, Malaysia Airlines, AirAsia, Sime Darby, Shangri-la, Genting Resorts and Maxis.
Emerging brands and trademarks, which are growing regionally, including Proton, Perodua, Mamee snacks and Vochelle chocolates. - Ooi Tee Ching, New Straits Times
INTA chief representative of Asia-Pacific Seth Hays cited the latest study, conducted from 2012 to 2015, by Frontier Economics, highlighting trademark-intensive activities contribute technological innovation and international business growth.
When asked on the 30 per cent direct and 60 per cent indirect contributions to Malaysia’s economy, Hays explained when trademark-intensive activities are extensively promoted within the business community, government and consuming public, it results in immense cross sectoral economic growth.
"Trademark-intensive industries in Malaysia comprised 55 per cent of the country's share of exports, including manufacturing of computers, electronics and related equipment, which accounted for about 19 per cent of total manufacturing value-add,” he said.
Hays was speaking in a media briefing here today, after presenting ‘The Economic Contributions of Trademark-intensive Industries in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand’ report.
Also present were Shook Lin & Bok deputy managing partner Michael Soo, MyIPO deputy director general Zulkarnain Muhammad and MyIPO assistant director general Azahar Abdul Razab.
"In terms of employment, output, and value-added, workers' share of workforce represented 24 per cent of total employment," Hays said.
Soo concurred and said trademark registration, brand development and enforcement of intellectual property protection will continue its significance as Malaysia embrace a knowledge-based digital economy.
Soo highlighted homegrown brands trademarks that are growing in brand value globally include Petronas, Maybank, CIMB, Malaysia Airlines, AirAsia, Sime Darby, Shangri-la, Genting Resorts and Maxis.
Emerging brands and trademarks, which are growing regionally, including Proton, Perodua, Mamee snacks and Vochelle chocolates. - Ooi Tee Ching, New Straits Times
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Monday, September 4, 2017
Access to Biological Resources and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Bill 2017
The ABS Bill have been passed, according to parliament. The bill seeks to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity and Nagoya Protocol.
Malaysia is rich in biodiversity. The bill imposes a requirement of a permit for commercial or potential commercial exploitation of biological resources. The permit is provided after a benefit sharing agreement is established with the resource provider of biological resources. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment at federal level or State Economic Planning can issue the permit. Anyone who accessed biological resources without a permit commits an offense.
If the Federal Government or State Authority is not the resource provider, it may require the applicant to pay a percentage of monetary benefits derived under the benefit sharing agreement. If the biological resource is obtained from land which indigenous and local community have a right, or traditional knowledge held by the community, a consent is required to be obtained.
Any person applying for a patent, in or outside Malaysia, in relation to a biological resource shall notify the government in writing within thirty days from the date of application. The person that did not comply commits an offense.
A reward may be provided for informers for services rendered in connection with the detection of any offense under this Act.
Malaysia is rich in biodiversity. The bill imposes a requirement of a permit for commercial or potential commercial exploitation of biological resources. The permit is provided after a benefit sharing agreement is established with the resource provider of biological resources. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment at federal level or State Economic Planning can issue the permit. Anyone who accessed biological resources without a permit commits an offense.
If the Federal Government or State Authority is not the resource provider, it may require the applicant to pay a percentage of monetary benefits derived under the benefit sharing agreement. If the biological resource is obtained from land which indigenous and local community have a right, or traditional knowledge held by the community, a consent is required to be obtained.
Any person applying for a patent, in or outside Malaysia, in relation to a biological resource shall notify the government in writing within thirty days from the date of application. The person that did not comply commits an offense.
A reward may be provided for informers for services rendered in connection with the detection of any offense under this Act.
Finally, a law to curb biopiracy
Posted on 7 August 2017 - 10:05am
Gurdial Singh Nijar
LAST week the Dewan Rakyat passed a bill to curb "biopiracy". This is the stealing of the biological resources of a country without its consent.
Once it becomes law shortly (after the Dewan Negara and the king give their assent), a permit will be required to access our biological resources for research and development; or to access traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples associated with these resources. If it is for a commercial purpose then there must be a benefit-sharing agreement with the resource provider – invariably indigenous and local communities. Or states – who have jurisdiction over state parks and forests. For pure research purposes, for example by universities, there is no need for a benefit sharing agreement.
Crucially, in all cases the prior informed consent of indigenous and local communities is mandatory when their traditional knowledge associated with the biological resource is taken. For it is their traditional knowledge as to the uses of these resources that is much sought after. Indeed, such knowledge has clothed, fed and healed the world.
The World Health Organisation reports that three-fourths of the drugs in modern medicine are based on leads provided by the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities. Even the life-saving anaesthesia – so critical for surgeries – is reportedly based on the traditional knowledge of South American indigenous peoples. They caught monkeys perched high up on trees by shooting them with a dart loaded with plant-based "poison". Only the monkey's outer skin would be pierced (so the poison did not contaminate the animal) but the monkey's bodily functions continued. So rigor mortis would not set it and the monkey would fall to the ground.
In the past corporations, essentially from the North, accessed the resources and the traditional knowledge for free on the basis that they were "the common heritage of mankind". Developing countries protested because these resources – including seeds which farmers provided to collection centres (mainly in the North) – were then accessed by corporations, turned into products, patented and commercialised. The huge profits reaped were never returned to the holders of the traditional knowledge nor the country from where the resources were accessed. And so, for example, the traditional knowledge of the multi-uses of the neem plant – described by Gandhi as a village pharmacopoeia – was pillaged by Western scientists visiting Indian villages – who patented the precise use of the active ingredients of the bioresource.
Finally, an international Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) was enacted in 1992. It vested the resources in the country and in its people; and made it a condition that there must be prior informed consent of the resource provider. Malaysia is a party to the CBD. The CBD's benefit sharing requirements were reinforced by another international agreement – the Nagoya Protocol of 2010. Malaysia played a pivotal role in the negotiation of this protocol – as a spokesperson for developing countries grouped as the Like Minded Megadiverse Countries.
This bill paves the way for the country to ratify the protocol.
The bill was a long time in the making. Essentially because our constituent states, which constitutionally have exclusive jurisdiction over land and its resources, were wary of the encroachment of federal authority over their rights. The matter was resolved with the jurisdiction to implement the law being vested entirely in states. The federal government plays a coordinating role. As well as provide the link to international enforcement when a resource illegally taken from the state is developed and patented elsewhere.
Under the Nagoya Protocol, countries who become parties to this treaty must ensure that anyone using biological resources (and the associated traditional knowledge) or applying for rights over products created from this use, has acquired the resource legally from the country of origin. Else, the country will be subjected to compliance measures. This is an added value for our states as only parties (read, the federal government) can be a party to the protocol to avail itself of these enforcement measures. So, if someone steals a resource or associated traditional knowledge and seeks later to patent or commercialise a product developed from the resource in a foreign country, then it must prove that it has acquired the resource legally in compliance with our laws. The foreign country which is a party to the protocol is obliged to put in place measures that will prevent any illegal use.
This is indeed a significant step forward in ensuring that we as a country, and indigenous and local communities, do not lose benefits arising from the pirating of our resources and traditional knowledge by foreign corporations and persons.
That this illegal taking could well result in huge losses can be illustrated by a recent example. A US researcher patented a fungi which has the potential to treat a recurring disease of the oil palm. This translates into huge potential value. He collected the resource on a visit to a research university in Malaysia. He refuses to acknowledge that he needs to get our consent nor come to a benefit sharing arrangement.
Biopiracy has been a worldwide phenomenon. The San indigenous people had their traditional knowledge of the hoodia plant accessed for treating obesity. The indigenous people were by-passed entirely. Neither their consent was sought; nor any benefits accrued to them. They had to fight long and hard to secure benefits. Turmeric and basmati rice – all have been misappropriated in similar fashion. There are many other examples. The Nagoya Protocol is focused on staunching these thefts.
Malaysia is rich in bioresources. We are among the 12 richest biodiversity countries in the world. One of our plants is now in the midst of testing to provide a remedy for AIDS. Modern biotechnology also relies on genetic resources and its derivatives to create new products. We house the oldest rainforest in the world – which stores these resources. Our indigenous peoples are the ones who can unlock the value of these resources with their traditional knowledge as to the use of these biological resources. The renowned Sarawak Biodiversity Centre has been actively carrying out research on biological resources based entirely on the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples. It has successfully entered into arrangements with companies and researchers to derive benefits if any resultant products are commercialised.
The bill will provide the necessary framework for regulating (and incentivising) research and development – by both foreign as well as local researchers.
In this context local researchers from public universities and research institutions can freely exchange the materials between themselves for pure research without the need for any additional permit beyond the initial one. Only when a "hit" yields a product will they be required to enter into a benefit sharing agreement.
Overall, this new Access and Benefit-Sharing law will optimise the benefits accruing to the country, states and indigenous peoples, encourage domestic researchers and provide the necessary financial and technological means for us to promote the conservation and sustainable use of the components of our rich biodiversity.
Gurdial was the founder-director of the Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity Law, a joint venture between the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and Universiti Malaya. The centre was involved in the drafting of the ABS bill. - The Sun
Gurdial Singh Nijar
LAST week the Dewan Rakyat passed a bill to curb "biopiracy". This is the stealing of the biological resources of a country without its consent.
Once it becomes law shortly (after the Dewan Negara and the king give their assent), a permit will be required to access our biological resources for research and development; or to access traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples associated with these resources. If it is for a commercial purpose then there must be a benefit-sharing agreement with the resource provider – invariably indigenous and local communities. Or states – who have jurisdiction over state parks and forests. For pure research purposes, for example by universities, there is no need for a benefit sharing agreement.
Crucially, in all cases the prior informed consent of indigenous and local communities is mandatory when their traditional knowledge associated with the biological resource is taken. For it is their traditional knowledge as to the uses of these resources that is much sought after. Indeed, such knowledge has clothed, fed and healed the world.
The World Health Organisation reports that three-fourths of the drugs in modern medicine are based on leads provided by the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities. Even the life-saving anaesthesia – so critical for surgeries – is reportedly based on the traditional knowledge of South American indigenous peoples. They caught monkeys perched high up on trees by shooting them with a dart loaded with plant-based "poison". Only the monkey's outer skin would be pierced (so the poison did not contaminate the animal) but the monkey's bodily functions continued. So rigor mortis would not set it and the monkey would fall to the ground.
In the past corporations, essentially from the North, accessed the resources and the traditional knowledge for free on the basis that they were "the common heritage of mankind". Developing countries protested because these resources – including seeds which farmers provided to collection centres (mainly in the North) – were then accessed by corporations, turned into products, patented and commercialised. The huge profits reaped were never returned to the holders of the traditional knowledge nor the country from where the resources were accessed. And so, for example, the traditional knowledge of the multi-uses of the neem plant – described by Gandhi as a village pharmacopoeia – was pillaged by Western scientists visiting Indian villages – who patented the precise use of the active ingredients of the bioresource.
Finally, an international Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) was enacted in 1992. It vested the resources in the country and in its people; and made it a condition that there must be prior informed consent of the resource provider. Malaysia is a party to the CBD. The CBD's benefit sharing requirements were reinforced by another international agreement – the Nagoya Protocol of 2010. Malaysia played a pivotal role in the negotiation of this protocol – as a spokesperson for developing countries grouped as the Like Minded Megadiverse Countries.
This bill paves the way for the country to ratify the protocol.
The bill was a long time in the making. Essentially because our constituent states, which constitutionally have exclusive jurisdiction over land and its resources, were wary of the encroachment of federal authority over their rights. The matter was resolved with the jurisdiction to implement the law being vested entirely in states. The federal government plays a coordinating role. As well as provide the link to international enforcement when a resource illegally taken from the state is developed and patented elsewhere.
Under the Nagoya Protocol, countries who become parties to this treaty must ensure that anyone using biological resources (and the associated traditional knowledge) or applying for rights over products created from this use, has acquired the resource legally from the country of origin. Else, the country will be subjected to compliance measures. This is an added value for our states as only parties (read, the federal government) can be a party to the protocol to avail itself of these enforcement measures. So, if someone steals a resource or associated traditional knowledge and seeks later to patent or commercialise a product developed from the resource in a foreign country, then it must prove that it has acquired the resource legally in compliance with our laws. The foreign country which is a party to the protocol is obliged to put in place measures that will prevent any illegal use.
This is indeed a significant step forward in ensuring that we as a country, and indigenous and local communities, do not lose benefits arising from the pirating of our resources and traditional knowledge by foreign corporations and persons.
That this illegal taking could well result in huge losses can be illustrated by a recent example. A US researcher patented a fungi which has the potential to treat a recurring disease of the oil palm. This translates into huge potential value. He collected the resource on a visit to a research university in Malaysia. He refuses to acknowledge that he needs to get our consent nor come to a benefit sharing arrangement.
Biopiracy has been a worldwide phenomenon. The San indigenous people had their traditional knowledge of the hoodia plant accessed for treating obesity. The indigenous people were by-passed entirely. Neither their consent was sought; nor any benefits accrued to them. They had to fight long and hard to secure benefits. Turmeric and basmati rice – all have been misappropriated in similar fashion. There are many other examples. The Nagoya Protocol is focused on staunching these thefts.
Malaysia is rich in bioresources. We are among the 12 richest biodiversity countries in the world. One of our plants is now in the midst of testing to provide a remedy for AIDS. Modern biotechnology also relies on genetic resources and its derivatives to create new products. We house the oldest rainforest in the world – which stores these resources. Our indigenous peoples are the ones who can unlock the value of these resources with their traditional knowledge as to the use of these biological resources. The renowned Sarawak Biodiversity Centre has been actively carrying out research on biological resources based entirely on the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples. It has successfully entered into arrangements with companies and researchers to derive benefits if any resultant products are commercialised.
The bill will provide the necessary framework for regulating (and incentivising) research and development – by both foreign as well as local researchers.
In this context local researchers from public universities and research institutions can freely exchange the materials between themselves for pure research without the need for any additional permit beyond the initial one. Only when a "hit" yields a product will they be required to enter into a benefit sharing agreement.
Overall, this new Access and Benefit-Sharing law will optimise the benefits accruing to the country, states and indigenous peoples, encourage domestic researchers and provide the necessary financial and technological means for us to promote the conservation and sustainable use of the components of our rich biodiversity.
Gurdial was the founder-director of the Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity Law, a joint venture between the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and Universiti Malaya. The centre was involved in the drafting of the ABS bill. - The Sun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)