Revocation of patents, oppositions, disclosure requirements Sample Clauses

Revocation of patents, oppositions, disclosure requirements. In US free trade agreements, a common provision not found in TRIPS is that patents can only be revoked or cancelled on grounds that would have justified a refusal to grant the patent initially. Apparently then, the only causes for revocation or cancellation of a patent would be that the patent was not new, did not entail an inventive step or was not industrially applicable. The DR-CAFTA and Peru PTAs add other considerations for revocation, such as fraud, inequitable conduct or misrepresentation.188 The agreement with Bahrain recognizes a similar principle but is more restrictive than, for example, the US-PTA with Peru, by stating that Where a Party provides proceedings that permit a third party to oppose the grant of a patent, a Party shall not make such proceedings available prior to the grant of the patent.189 In the latter situation, the PTA goes into pure administrative issues by foreclosing the possibility of establishing, at the domestic level, a pre-grant opposition system. Thus in this case opposition could only take place after the grant of the patent. A related question might arise as to whether parties may incorporate substantial requirements at the domestic level on the disclosure of origin of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge (TK). The TRIPS Agreement is silent in this respect, providing only that applicants shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art and may require the applicant to indicate the best mode for carrying out the invention known to the inventor at the filing date or, where priority is claimed, at the priority date of the application.190 As a matter of principle, TRIPS does not limit Members to place further conditions to the disclosure of inventions. As such, the disclosure of origin at the domestic level is, in principle, TRIPS compliant.191 Those opposed to the disclosure of origin have argued in the Council for TRIPS that such requirement would add a further obligation to applicants and would not be TRIPS compliant.192 187 Bahrain-USA, Article 14.8.2. 188 “Without prejudice to Article 5.A (3) of the Paris Convention, each Party shall provide that a patent may be revoked or nullified only on grounds that would have justified a refusal to grant the patent according to its laws. However, a Party may also provide that fraud, misrepresentation, or inequitable conduct may be the basis for revoking, nullifying, or hol...