Laos: Accelerating patent application prosecution

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Laos: Accelerating patent application prosecution

While an amended version of the Lao Law on Intellectual Property took effect in June 2018, patent applicants can still be frustrated by the lengthy application pendency in the Lao Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) of the Ministry of Science and Technology. There are, however, several ways to accelerate Lao patent prosecution.

Laos participates in the ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation (ASPEC) which allows applicants for patent protection in other ASEAN patent offices to save cost and time when seeking Lao patent protection. There are nine participating ASEAN IP offices (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) and ASPEC enables Lao DIP to utilise the search and examination results from any of these IP offices as a reference in the Lao patent prosecution when that IP office has found at least one claim novel and inventive. In this manner, the applicant benefits from expedited prosecution from the time of filing the ASPEC request until grant.

In order to qualify for ASPEC, a patent application filed at the Lao DIP must be a corresponding patent application to one that is filed and examined in another ASEAN patent office. Patent applications are corresponding applications if they are linked by a Paris Convention priority claim (from one to the other or from both to another patent application) or are both national phase entry applications from the same Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application.

In 2016, a second means of accelerating Lao patent prosecution was launched with the Japan Patent Office (JPO). A framework was established by agreement between the Lao Ministry of Science and Technology and the JPO. Under the agreement, when patent applications have been examined and granted at the JPO, patent rights may also be granted to corresponding applications which have been filed in Laos without conducting substantial examinations. Therefore, applicants of Lao patent applications who own patents granted by the JPO can request accelerated decisions on eligibility for grant of the Lao patent applications with the DIP at any time after grant of the Japanese patent.

The requirements are that the designated patent application filed with the DIP must share the same earliest priority date and, like ASPEC, be linked by Paris Convention or PCT priority. In addition, since the designated patent application filed with the DIP requesting validation in Laos must already be a valid patent in Japan, the Lao pending claims must be the same as the claims granted by the JPO.

Providing a further means for accelerating patent grant in Laos, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) earlier this year also announced that, under a memorandum of understanding signed in 2018 to further the IP cooperation between China and Laos under the Belt and Road Initiative and China-ASEAN IP cooperation, patent applicants who own valid Chinese patents may also request accelerated eligibility for grant decisions on Lao patent applications.

Thus, Lao patent prosecution can be accelerated in several ways to reduce filing to grant pendency in Laos using Japanese or Chinese patents or ASEAN patent applications.

collopy-dan.jpg

Daniel Collopy


more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

US counsel review the key copyright and trademark trends of 2024, including generative AI disputes and SCOTUS cases
If 2024 is anything to go by, the next 12 months could see more IP firms seek investment opportunities while IP lawyers are increasingly likely to work alongside other functions
Practitioners reflect on the impact of USPTO guidance, as well as PTAB and litigation trends
We discuss Managing IP’s 50 most influential people in IP list and look back on the biggest talking points in the last month
Firms explain how they question jurors and account for potential bias in trade secrets cases
A meeting between the EPO and Ericsson, Paul McCartney weighing in on AI and copyright, and a law firm’s STEM pledge were among the top talking points
National courts could combat inconsistencies over the speed of judgments – and provide parties with much-needed certainty – by looking to the UPC
Sources in four jurisdictions discuss the downsides of delayed judgments and why they prefer a well-reasoned, late finding, over a quick ruling that lacks substance
Counsel discuss how likely SCOTUS is to remand closely watched trademark case, which centres on the principle of corporate separateness
Partners at Baker Botts explain why oral arguments were a crucial factor in convincing the Federal Circuit to affirm a lower court ruling
Gift this article