This Argument Lies In Grey Area! I Once Used It, & Albeit It Was Rejected For All The Correct Reasons, But Worth Discerning Upon As Why There’s A Problem With Some Of The WIPO Prosecution Timelines in “PCT” & Why I Admire “MADRID & HAGUE” Prosecutions ‘Structure’ More, In The Comparative Analysis!

 

Take This Scenario!

The time limit mentioned in the PCT/RO/132 of approx. 5 DAYS can indeed be extended, for the reason under Article 14(1)(b) wherein if the receiving office finds any defects, it shall invite the Applicant to correct them under Rule 26(1) of PCT Regulation, and, the Time Limit to Correct the Defects under Rule 26(1) of the Regulation shall be TWO MONTHS under Rule 26(2) of the Regulation from the date of invitation to correct, which further mentions that -> it may be extended by the receiving Office at any time before a decision is taken. Now, this will circumvent the necessity of the cooling period of six weeks wait time before going in the convention country, either directly or vide the PCT, wherein the time limit to process the said request is usually approx. 21 Days, for by passing the six weeks colling period, or, maybe for directly going into the convention country, as per the instructions given to the Applicant in PCT/RO/132 and PCT/RO/105.

Furthermore, the Applicant can solicit for the extension of the time as applicable under Rule 26(2) of the Regulation as and when the PCT Application has not been forwarded to the International Bureau, but an opportunity be taken on the same grounds to be heard for filing before the cooling period of those six weeks.

What does all this mean! In short, it means:

The cooling period of six weeks w.r.t. secrecy, can technically be circumvented in the grey area, that usually require taking the permission before filing of either the convention application or the PCT. This is the grey area! Albeit in this case, the National Law will supersede this, and thus this argument will FALL FLAT! BUT, worth discerning, as how many gaps are there in the PCT itself, as I’ve discussed earlier in my previous blogs also!

Madrid, on the other hand has no such cooling period timeline! But yes, the difference comes in the Priority itself! Whilst in the Madrid, the priority is restricted to 6 Months, whereas, in the PCT the priority is restricted to 1 Year, PLUS couple of months more subject to the permission!

I always wondered why in the Madrid we had period of 6 months priority, and not let’s say 5 years. Because you know why? At any given office, the non-use factor for rectification or removal comes into picture after the period of five years of non-use, and not 6 months. So how it would harm, if someone can claim the period of 5 years priority? Ne’er Mind!

Thus, the grey area that I discussed above is worth discerning!

Am I missing something?😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi