105¦~3¤ë¸¹ ¹D ªk ªk °T (287)

DEEP & FAR

 

 

§Ö³t¹D¸ô(Fast-Tracking)ºñ¯à±M§Q¥Ó½Ð

 

¶À­§ÀR ¸ê²`±M§Q¤uµ{®v

¡E¶§©ú¤j¾Çª«²zªvÀø¨t

¡E¶§©ú¤j¾Ç¥Íª«ÃľǩÒ

 

 

B.µ{§Ç­n¨D

    µ{§ÇProcess requirements are non-subject matter restrictions, such as limitations on the number and type of claims permitted and parameters such as fees and costs.­n¨D¬O«D¥DÃDªº­­¨î¡A¦p¹ï¤¹³\ªº½Ð¨D¶µªº¼Æ¶q©MÃþ«¬ªº­­¨î¥H¤Î¦p¶O¥Î©M¦¨¥»ªº°Ñ¼Æ¡CThese requirements vary considerably among programe.³o¨Ç­n¨D¦b¤£¦P­pµe¤¤¦³«Ü¤jªº¤£¦P¡CWhile IP Australia and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) allow an unlimited number of claims, for many applicants charges per claim, as imposed by the Japan Patent Office (JPO), for example, may make the cost of larger claim sets prohibitive.ÁöµM¿D¬w±M§Q§½©M¥[®³¤j´¼°]§½¡]CIPO¡^¤¹³\¤£­­¼Æ¶qªº½Ð¨D¶µ¡A¦p¤é¥»±M§Q§½¡]JPO¡^©Ò¹ê¦æªº¡A¹ï³\¦h¥Ó½Ð¤H¦Ó¨¥¡A³v¶µ¦¬¶O¡A¨Ò¦p¡A¥i¯à¨Ï±o¸û¤j½Ð¨D¶µ¶°¦Xªº¶O¥Î¥O¤H±æ¦Ó«o¨B¡CSimilarly, IP Australia and CIPO are relatively liberal as to unity of invention (the requirement that a patent application relate to only one invention or to a group of closely related inventions), while the JPO is stricter in this regard.¦P¼Ë¦a¡A¿D¬w±M§Q§½©MCIPO³£¹ïµo©ú³æ¤@©Ê¡]§Y±M§Q¥Ó½Ð®×¥u¯A¤Î¤@¶µµo©ú©Î¤@²Õºò±K¬ÛÃöªºµo©úªº­n¨D¡^¬Û¹ï¼eÃP¡A¦ÓJPO¦b³o¤è­±¸û¬°ÄY®æ¡CMost programs charge no additional fee for accelerated examination, but some offices require that applicants conduct a prior art search and a comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art.¤j¦h¼Æ­pµeªº¥[³t¼f¬d¨S¦³ÃB¥~ªº³W¶O¡A¦ý¤@¨Ç±M§Q§½­n¨D¥Ó½Ð¤H¶i¦æ¥ý«e§Þ³NÀ˯Á©M­n¨D©Ò½Ðµo©ú»P³Ì±µªñªº¥ý«e§Þ³Nªº¤ñ¸û¡CThis effectively transfers part of the patent officeâ£á™s work to the patent applicant.³o¦³®Ä¦a±N±M§Q§½ªº¤@³¡¤À¤u§@Âಾ¦Ü±M§Q¥Ó½Ð¤H¡C

C.ResultsC. µ²ªG

Since 2009, accelerated examination under the various programs has been requested for over 5,000 patent applications.    2009¦~¥H¨Ó¡A¶W¹L5,000¶µ±M§Q¥Ó½Ð®×¤w½Ð¨D¦UºØ­pµe¤Uªº¥[³t¼f¬d¡CThe United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) received the highest number of requests (3,533), followed by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) with 776 and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) with 604 (see Table below).¬ü°ê±M§Q¤Î°Ó¼Ð§½¡]USPTO¡^¦¬¨ìªº½Ð¨D¼Æ¶q³Ì¦h¡]3,533¡^¡A¨ä¦¸¬O­^°ê±M§Q§½¡]UKIPO¡^ªº776¥ó©MÁú°ê±M§Q§½¡]KIPO¡^ªº604¥ó¡]¨£¤Uªí¡^¡C

Country°ê®a

Starting Date¶}©l¤é´Á

Number of Requests (as of August 2012)½Ð¨D¼Æ¡]ºI¦Ü8¤ë2012¡^

As a Percentage of Eligible Patents¾A®æ±M§Qªº¦Ê¤À¤ñ

UK­^°ê

May 2009 2009¦~5¤ë

776 776

20.91% 20.91¢H

Australia¿D¬w

September 2009 2009¦~9¤ë

43 43

0.76% 0.76¢H

«nSouth KoreaÁú

October 2009 2009¦~10¤ë

604 604

1.88% 1.88¢H

Japan¤é¥»

November 2009 2009¦~11¤ë

220 220

1.48% 1.48¢H

US¬ü°ê

December 2009* 2009¦~12¤ë*

3533 3533

8.22% 8.22¢H

Israel¥H¦â¦C

December 2009 2009¦~12¤ë

78 78

13.13% 13.13¢H

Canada¥[®³¤j

March 2011 2011¦~3¤ë

67 67

1.64% 1.64¢H

*Note: The USPTO program was temporary and closed after the 3,500 th application was received. *µù¡GUSPTO­p¹º¬O¼È®Éªº¡A¥B¦b¦¬¨ì²Ä3,500¥ó¥Ó½Ð®×«áµ²§ô¡C

 

    The evidence shows that fast-track procedures reduce the time filing to grant by several years compared to ordinary examination.ÃÒ¾ÚÅã¥Ü¡A»P´¶³q¼f¬d¬Û¤ñ¡A§Ö³t¹D¸ôµ{§ÇÁYµu¤F±q¥Ó½Ð¨ì®Ö­ãªº®É¶¡¹F¼Æ¦~¡C¦b§Ö³t¹D¸ô­pµe¤§¶¡¡A®ÖThe time to grant is cut by between 42 percent and 75 percent across fast-track programs, with the shortest time to grant delivered by the UK.­ãªº®É¶¡ÁYµu¤F42¢H¦Ü75¢H¤§¶¡¡A³Ìµuªº®Ö­ã®É¶¡¬O¥Ñ­^°ê´£¨Ñªº¡C