America-Israel Patent Law

Professor Zelig Eshhar z"l

I’ve mentioned previously that my wife’s building at Weizmann was rendered unusable as a result of some ballistic missiles the fun-loving Moslems running Iran gifted us. What I didn’t mention is that she has been in that same building, the Wolfson Building, since she first started as a student at Weizmann in the fall of 1991.  Most of the time during her doctorate she was on the sixth floor, working in the lab of Zelig Eshhar. As an outsider studying in a different department, one of the things that impressed me about Zelig was that he seemed to have a good handle on how to manage his research group: he wasn’t a slave driver, and from time to time to group went out for fun off-campus. Eight years ago, I also wrote a piece about how he stood to make quite a chunk of change due to the licensing of patents concerning techniques for modifying a patient’s own T-cells to target them to cancerous cells (methods that are now in use), and how his story illustrated the difference between getting credit for one’s scientific contributions and getting money for commercializing an idea. And for those who are into patent trivia, Zelig’s name is forever enshrined in the caption of a 2005 Federal Circuit opinion, Capon v. Eshhar.

Zelig died yesterday after a prolonged period of dementia, and is being buried as I write. If one is into symbolism, I suppose one could say something about how Zelig’s passing in close temporal proximity to the damage to the building that housed his lab symbolically marks the end of an era, or something like that. Except that Wolfson will be repaired, just as Weizmann will repair or rebuild all the damaged or destroyed buildings. Most people who go into scientific research for a living do so because they’re driven to do the research, and a couple of missiles aren’t going to stop them. And with regard to Zelig, in addition to pioneering T-cell therapy, he mentored many students over the years, some of whom (like my wife) have remained in academia and continue to research problems and publish their findings, others of whom work in the biotech industry, researching problems of commercial significance.  

Israel PTO to Patent Filers: We Know What’s Best For You, So Maybe We’ll Listen To You, Maybe We Won’t

Last month I wrote about some of the ongoing problems with the Israel PTO’s patent electronic filing system.

On July 1, on just two days’ notice, the ILPTO held a Zoom meeting to update patent filers about additional changes in the electronic filing system. The meeting took nearly two-and-a-half hours.  Over 100 users of the system participated in the meeting.

Two of the complaints raised by multiple participants were (a) the lack of a filing acknowledgement, showing what documents a filer filed and how those documents were coded into the system, and (b) the inability to upload a cover letter with a given filing, let alone a miscellaneous letter to deal with a case not covered by the system. Remember, the new system thinks it knows all possible options available to an applicant at any given moment and all possible documents that one might file, so according the PTO responsible for development of this system, there’s no need for cover letters.

So on July 2, I wrote her the following:

Patent application no. XXXXXX:

There are 250 pages in the application (231 pages of text, 19 of figures).  

At the time of filing in 2020 I paid for three sets of 50 extra pages. 

This year, on March 2, the Office sent a letter saying we owed extra page fees. We don't, because, as I said, we paid for the extra pages at the time of filing.

I want to respond to the notice. But when I go into the "new" system to respond to the "מענה לליקוים" (there is no comparable option in the "old" system), (a) the system tells me that we owe three fees for extra pages, and (b) there's no place for me to submit a letter explaining that the system is wrong.

You said in the Zoom meeting yesterday that there's no need for such letters to accompany responses, and no need for miscellaneous letters to address situations the system isn't designed for, because the system knows exactly what's necessary.

This is yet another example of how those assertions are false. 

The team developing this system cannot possibly anticipate every scenario. 

Had you conducted alpha and beta testing prior to launch, you might have picked up on many problems beforehand. Instead, you chose not to test, and to launch with a faulty system, and then to force users to waste hundreds of hours identifying problems, some of which you still refuse to fix. 

I don't know why the development team that you head continues to act as if it's omniscient, when all evidence points to the contrary.

I don't know why the team that you head continues to act as if the time of patent office employees is valuable and the workflow within the patent office is important, but the time of the practitioners, paralegals and applicants who have to file with the system you've designed isn't worth anything, and the workflow of offices and organizations outside the patent office doesn't matter.

I don't know why the development team that you head continues to act as if a poorly designed filing system does not impose unnecessary financial costs on the applicants.

I do know that this needs to stop. 

We users need to be able to submit miscellaneous letters. We need to be able to submit cover letters if we so choose. We need to receive an acknowledgment of what we filed immediately upon filing, showing the names of the files we submitted and their sizes. We need to be able to choose the action that we want to take in a given file, and not have the system dictate to us what our choices are. We need to be able to indicate how many months' extension we want to pay for, and not have the system dictate to us, since the system is sometimes wrong.

There are many features I use in the USPTO's filing system, and in ePCT, that could and should be implemented here. But you didn't ask us before you started developing the "new" filing system, because now you're invested in a sub-optimal system, and I have no idea how much effort will be required to fix it so that it's acceptable.

Then today, in a different file, I had a bizarre experience: I filed a response, and after filing the system told me I owed additional page fees.  Except that I reduced the total number of pages, and had already paid extra page fees.  And, as in the case about which I wrote to the ILPTO on July 2, there’s no way to submit a letter telling the system it’s wrong. So today I sent this person the following:

[name], a follow-up to my email of yesterday:

Your wonderful filing system just did it again in application no. YYYYYY. 

Early today I filed a S18 response, in which we cancelled many claims, so the total number of pages was reduced.

And I then later in the day - today - I received a letter from the PTO telling me that we increased the number of pages (by 10, from 250 to 260) and therefore now need to pay for excess pages.

Since the system doesn't provide us with an electronic filing acknowledgement, that lists not only the documents we filed, but also how those documents were coded, I can only guess as to what happened here.

Guess number 1: the system used the MARKED version of the claims to do the page count, rather than the clean version.

Guess number 2: I mistakenly uploaded the clean claims as the marked version, and the marked claims as the clean version, and the system used the marked claims to the page count. 

What makes me doubt either guess number 1 or guess number 2 is that (a) I don't see any claims in the database listed as part of the submission in response to the S18 letter, and if no amended claims were submitted, the page count shouldn't have changed, and (b) if the marked version of the claims was counted, that version would have increased the total number of pages by 14, not by 10. 

So that leads me to further guesses:

Guess number 3: I didn't upload the claims, and instead mistakenly uploaded a prior art publication as claims.

The problem with guess number 3 is that (a) as noted, I don't see anything in the database listed as claims filed as part of the submission, and (b) none of the publications, if erroneously submitted as claims, would have increased the total number of pages by 10.

Guess number 4: I didn't upload any claims at all, and the system randomly generated a letter telling me I owe money.

Since it appears from the database that I didn't upload the amended claims, this seems the most likely scenario. 

Regardless of the reason, why is the system generating erroneous "you owe us money" letters?

To make sure that the correct claims are on file, I have now submitted a "supplemental S18 response", with the amended claims.

But the fact that the system is sending out letters telling us that we owe money, when in fact we don't owe money, is unacceptable, to put it mildly.  

There are many ways in which this could be addressed.  For example, to account for the possiblity that someone mistakenly switched the marked and clean claims, a competent system would notice the discrepancy in the number of pages between the two documents, and figure out which document is the actual clean version of the claims to be examined. Or a human could verify that.  Similarly, if a publication was mistakenly loaded instead of claims, the office could manually inspect to determine that. Or the system itself could inspect the document and warn the user beforehand that the document does not appear to be a set of claims. (The USPTO currently does this.) Or, before the system sends out a "you owe us money letter", the Office could have a person check to make sure the letter is warranted.

In any event, there is now a "you owe us for extra pages" letter outstanding in this file. Since, as I mentioned yesterday, your wonderful system won't let me simply submit a letter explaining why no extra page fees are due, please send another letter cancelling the "you owe us money" letter from the file, and in that new letter please include an apology for wasting my time and my client's money.

And please fix the programming in your wonderful system so that it doesn't send spurious "you owe us money letters".

I have not yet received a response.  We’ll see what happens.

Is the Israel PTO Trying To Usurp the Knesset (Legislature) And The Courts?

Some years ago, the Israel PTO started publishing a set of “Examination Guidelines” (“EGs”). These are like the USPTO’s Manual of Patent Examination Practice (MPEP), but the modern State of Israel being younger than the USA, and Israel having a smaller population and therefore fewer patents and less case law than the USA, the ILPTO’s EGs in total run much shorter than the MPEP.

Like the MPEP, the EGs are supposed to reflect actual case law, but like the MPEP, they often reflect the Office’s preferences, unsupported by caselaw. Also like the MPEP, the ILPTO revises the EGs from time to time.

Last month the Office announced a three-hour roundtable meeting on June 23 (since postponed because of the butt-kicking that Israel and the USA gave Iran; a new date has not yet been announced) to discuss possible changes to two sections of the EGs, paragraph 6.11 of Annex F concerning the novelty of method of use claims that recite a specific patient population, and Annex T concerning antibodies. The Office did not specify topics under consideration for the latter section, but it did put forth three possibilities for the former section. 

Specifically, paragraph 6.11 of Annex F presently reads (translation taken from the ILPTO; the actual text is in Hebrew):

6.11. Claims directed to a pharmaceutical composition for a certain target population

Examination of a claim directed to a composition for a therapeutic use defining a certain population, for example:

A pharmaceutical composition for use in treating cancer in a subject with a cancer having a mutation in EGFR (SEQ ID NO: 1), wherein the mutation is substitution of a methionine for a threonine at position 790; and wherein the pharmaceutical composition comprises an irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor.

The following must be accounted for during examination:

1. 1. Is the composition recognized for the claimed indication?
   2. Is there a difference in one of the composition's components or its relative part in the composition?
   3. Is there a difference in the claimed dosage regimen or mode of administration?

The claim would be lacking novelty only where the answer to question (a) is yes and to questions (b) and (c) is no, and the claimed target population is either explicitly disclosed in the prior art or included in the population of the prior art, and there is no teaching-away prior art excluding the claimed target population from that of the prior art. This is due to the fact that the knowledge on treating the claimed target population is part of the prior art regarding the broad population that includes also the target population. In other words, the use of the pharmaceutical composition is known for treating every subject belonging to the broad population, whether or not belonging to the claimed target population.

• • A teaching-away prior art may be general with respect to the claimed target population, such as pregnant women, patients with liver failure, patients with kidney failure, etc. On the other hand, teaching-away prior art may be specific to the claimed target population, such as patients suffering from G6P deficiency (G6PD) treated with a sulfonamide-based antibiotic that results in hemolysis.
  • Presenting or exemplifying a surprising effect, such as increased efficiency in the target population, is insufficient to qualify for novelty. In other words, it is rather required that the very possibility of treating said target population would be surprising in order for the claimed invention to be deemed novel.

In some cases, the prior art relates to a specific population while the claimed invention relates to a broader population (including said specific population) or a different specific population. In such cases, the claimed invention would be deemed novel only where there is no overlap between the population of the prior art and that of the claimed invention. Where the prior art relates to a specific population, the latter must be excluded from the claim to meet the requirements of Section 4 of the Law. Examples for claims regarding a pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of a specific target population are presented in Appendix 6.2.

The first thing one notes about this section is that it cites NO authority in support what it says. That in and of itself is a red flag.

The second thing that one notices (or that I noticed, anyway) is that this section is not consistent with Israel practice with regard to novelty in the situation of genus/sub-genus in claims on chemical compounds. In that situation, it’s well-established that (a) if the prior art discloses a genus of compounds, (b) the applicant claims a sub-genus of that genus, and (c) no member of the sub-genus is explicitly disclosed in the prior art, then (1) the sub-genus is regarded as novel, (2) the sub-genus is presumed to be obvious over the genus, and the applicant must present evidence of some unexpected advantage over the genus as a whole, e.g. greater efficacy, lower toxicity, greater stability in storage, easier to process into tablets, etc. 

Section 6.11, however, says that with regard to compositions for treating a particular patient population, we assume that the sub-population recited in the claim was included in the earlier, wider population disclosed in the prior art, and therefore even if there’s some unexpected benefit in treating the subpopulation, the claim lacks novelty. 

Seems to me that (a) consistency in considering novelty is warranted, (b) there’s no harm in applying the same standard for novelty used for chemical compounds per se to methods of treatment when the difference over the prior art is only in the patient population, and in subjecting such method of treatment claims to the same inventive step requirements as required for claims on sub-genera of compounds per se, and (c) by looking for ways to deny patentability to methods of treating sub-populations, the ILPTO would discourage research into sub-populations for treatment.

The ILPTO says it’s considering three possibilities with regard to paragraph 6.11 of Annex F: (a) revising the section to say that if the claim includes a step of diagnosing or identifying the subpopulation, it will be regarded as novel, (b) leaving the section as-is, or (c) deleting the section.  Clearly, in my mind, the last option is the one that needs to be chosen.

But what I can’t wrap my head around is, How on earth is this something for the ILPTO to decide, let alone for public discussion at the ILPTO?  Novelty is in the statute. That’s something the legislature decides. If there’s a question of interpretation, the matter can go to the courts, or the legislature can revise the statute. But what business is it of the ILPTO to establish policy with regard to what’s novel and what’s not? Either the statute means X or it doesn’t. The ILPTO doesn’t have the privilege of saying, “We want to interpret the statute as meaning X because that will implement the public policy that we prefer.” It’s not the ILPTO’s prerogative to decide policy.

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up, Installment Number I’ve Lost Count

I wrote in April and May about the Israel PTO’s update to its patent electronic filing system, in particular about how there were many glitches in the system, even as the Office claimed everything was hunky dory.

This post is about two ongoing problems with the electronic filing system: the lack of a filing acknowledgement showing what was submitted; and the fascistic design of the system, that presumes to anticipate every possible scenario and thus limit a filer’s options accordingly.

When the Israel PTO introduced electronic filing for patent applications in December 2015 as an optional filing means, they didn’t include a mechanism to provide the filer with confirmation of what had been filed.  As the deadline forcing practitioners to use the electronic system approached in June 2016, apparently at the urging of one of the more senior practitioners, the ILPTO started sending the filer an email containing the files submitted. Not ideal, but better than nothing.

But since the ILPTO first forced us to file new patent applications via the “new” electronic system in September 2023, the “new” system has never provided a filing receipt showing what you filed.

Now, theoretically, one can see what one filed after it’s been submitted. That’s because what happens when one files a new application, or a response, via the new system is that the system opens what I’ll call a “basket”. As soon as the “basket” is opened, a tracking number is assigned to this basket, and the date on which the “basket” was opened is recorded.  One then uploads to the “basket” the files one wishes to submit, and then clicks “submit”.  There’s a lag between when one clicks “submit” and when the system actually “accepts” the submission, to use the Hebrew term (what I’ll call “processes” a submission), but once the “basket” has been submitted, one can enter the basket in the EFS and see the documents that were submitted.  However, there are two problems here.

First, the system only provides information about two dates: the date on which the basket was created, and the date on which the basket was last updated. There’s no listing of the date and time on which a particular basket was processed into the system, and no email or other documentation is ever sent to the filer confirming the time of submission and what was submitted. And although the basket creation date can’t be changed, at least not by the end user, any time one goes into the basket to look at the documents contained therein – even after the basket has been processed into the system – the “basket last updated” status gets changed to the date on which one accessed the already-processed basket. I call it the Heisenberg feature of the system: you can’t prove both what you filed and the date on which it was processed into the system, because by entering the “basket” to see what’s contained therein, the system changes the “last updated” status.

In principle, once a document has been processed into the system, it’s visible in the ILPTO’s database (which is separate from the filing system). But the ILPTO has the capability to remove files from the database. So there really is no way to prove what one filed. And not all submissions show up in the database. For example, when one pays certain fees via the new system, there’s nothing in the database to reflect that something was paid.  Indeed, whereas in the “old” system, an extension of time, for example, always needed to be accompanied by some accompanying letter (e.g. an OA response or just an extension request), filings done under the “new” system have no such requirement, so no document appears in the database.

With the USPTO’s EFS, and even now with the USPTO’s PatentCrapper, which in many ways is a downgrade from its predecessor EFS, you can immediately download a filing acknowledgement that lists exactly the documents you submitted.  Moreover, those documents appear in the list with a hash function value, so that if you ever need to prove what it was you filed, you can do so. Why can’t the Israel PTO’s electronic patent filing system do the same?

The ”old” ILPTO electronic filing system is still available for certain actions. And because that system provides users with a filing confirmation, I continue to use that system for anything I can. Admittedly, that filing confirmation is itself flawed: the system emails back to the filer all the files that were submitted, except each one is shown as being about 2 kilobytes larger than the file that was actually submitted.  Still, it’s possible to retain those emails, or if one doesn’t wish to do that, to print out each email and the list of attached files, so that one can prove what was submitted.

This brings me to the limited choices that both the “old” system, but especially the “new system” provide to users.

When filing a response, or a request for extension, or a fee, the “old” system asks you to input the application number, and then to choose an action from a list of actions. In some cases, it says “Nyeah nyeah nyeah, you can’t do that action in this file!” The “new” system is even more draconian: you input the application or patent number, and the system proactively gives you a list of possible actions. In neither system is there the possibility of filing a “miscellaneous paper”.

This, of course, leads to problems if the system calculates things incorrectly.  For example, in neither the “old” system or the “new” system is “supplemental OA response” one of the choices. Another example: in the “new” system, if you want to submit something and an extension fee is due, the system calculates the amount it thinks is due and won’t let the filer submit until that fee is paid. I discussed previously a case in which the system told me I had 30 days to file a response even though a response had already been filed, and another case I had in which no fee was due but the system thought one was due and therefore wouldn’t let me submit.  In the latter case, without the option to file a “miscellaneous paper” for which the system wouldn’t calculate a fee, it took some work to get the issue resolved.

But those examples are nothing compared what happened to a colleague recently. He was asked by a pro se applicant to file a divisional application of an application in which the applicant/inventor was listed as the address for service. But the system wouldn’t let the practitioner file the divisional, because this colleague wasn’t listed as the address for service in the parent case – “You can’t file a divisional because you don’t have power of attorney in the parent case” was what the system told him.

The problem here is there’s nothing in the statute that says a divisional can only be filed by a party that has POA in the parent case. Moreover, for initial filing, Paris Convention filings, or PCT national phase filings, the office allows practitioners to file without a POA, and then gives the applicant time to provide a POA.  That POA need not necessarily appoint the practitioner who submitted the application.

In this case, because of the glitch, the inventor called the person in charge of the filing system, who is not a lawyer nor, as far as I know, a patent practitioner, and when the inventor found he was having trouble explaining the issue, he patched the practitioner into the call so that the practitioner could explain the problem. At which point the non-lawyer non-patent practitioner ILPTO person said, “I can’t talk to you about this, you don’t have power of attorney”.

You can’t make this stuff up.

What’s really surprising about that incident, and the fascistic nature of the ILPTO’s electronic filing system in general, is that the aforementioned person in charge grew up in what was then a communist country. You’d think such a person would understand that central planning, i.e. trying to anticipate every possible scenario, and then trying to limit people’s choices on that basis, is not a winning formula.

Earth to Israel Patent Office: your patent electronic filing system leaves much to be desired. If you had asked for input from us users before you launched it, it wouldn’t be deficient. And now that you’ve launched this deficient system, you need to learn from WIPO, which is fantastic in responding to user input about ways to improve the already-good ePCT system.

On Barnard Babies and Columbia Crazies

The craziness on American college campuses continues apace: in February babies at Barnard tried to take over the president’s office, yesterday some crazies at Columbia did the same in a library…during study period for finals.  Because they hate Jews (taking over building is the logical thing to do when you hate Jews, right?), and they clearly don’t need to study.

These incidents are striking to me because at the same time that the Barnard Babies were doing their thing in February, my daughter and her husband – both currently university students, both having served reserve duty – had their first child. A real baby, who really can only eat, sleep, poop and cry. (In the interim she’s added smiling to her repertoire.) The Barnard Babies and Columbia Crazies seem to have a similarly limited skill set, even though in principle they should be able to do more. At a minimum, they should be studying.  By comparison, this morning my daughter took her baby to class, while her husband took an exam and then headed off for more reserve duty, and this in between working jobs and applying for a mortgage.  But the BBs and CCs choose to whine and cry and go on and on because terrorism is more important to them than building the world.

This prompted me to do a comparison. In 2024, the USPTO granted 2,646 patents that list at least one inventor from the following countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somali, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, UAE, and Yemen.  That’s all the Arab countries, plus a few others. All Moslem. The collective population of these countries is almost 900 million. That’s fewer than 3 US patents for every million people.

In the same period, 2024, the USPTO granted 5,692 patents – more than twice as many – that list at least one Israeli inventor. But Israel has a population of only about 10 million – 90 times smaller than the combined populations of those Arab/Moslem countries. That’s nearly 570 US patents for every million Israelis, i.e. 190 times more US patents per capita than the entire Arab world. 

There’s a good chance that when our baby grows up, she’ll be listed as an inventor on a US patent.  That doesn’t seem to be the case for the Barnard Babies and Columbia Crazies.

Israel PTO Says Its Updated Patent Electronic Filing System is Fixed. Israel PTO Doesn’t Tell the Truth.

Earlier today, the ILPTO said that its patent electronic filing system is fixed (announcement at right).

One of my cases in Israel received an OA on December 31, 2024. The deadline to respond is therefore four months to later, viz. until April 30, 2025. Today. (See below.)

So I went to file the response, and instead of accepting the timely-filed response, the system said we owe a one month extension fee. And wouldn’t let me file unless we paid it.

Guess the system isn’t really fixed.

I emailed the response to the person responsible for the next system, explained the situation, and instructed her to enter the response. I’m not paying a fee that we don’t owe.

Israel PTO Patent Electronic Filing System Still Not 100%

1. A few minutes ago the Israel PTO sent out the notice to right, confirming what I wrote yesterday: that its new-and-improved system is timely sending out automatically-generated warning letters, but which provide warning about the wrong action that ostensibly needs to be taken. Took them a while to catch this, but at least they admit there’s a problem and are working to fix it. And they say that the erroneously-sent letters will be cancelled.

2. Earlier today, the Israel PTO sent out a notice that the new system chokes on PCT national phase filings, and advised people whose applications were not yet at the deadline to refrain from filing until the problem is fixed, and advised those with deadlines today to file the applications by email. Although there has been no subsequent announcement stating that the system has been fixed, as of this writing it appears that problem has been overcome: after logging in, choosing “PCT national phase filing” and entering the PCT application number, the system gives what says it’s an error message, but then the system pulls the data application from WIPO and allows the user to proceed.

We’re Back Online, But…

Both the ILPTO’s patent electronic filing system and database are back online.  But there’s at least one interesting glitch here.

In the demonstration session yesterday, they explained that whereas in the past, if you missed certain deadlines, the office would eventually send a letter telling you that you missed the deadline and giving you 30 days to respond or they’d close the file (“eventually” in some cases being more than a year after the missed deadline), henceforth we are to get letters warning us that we only have one month left (including any available extensions) to respond.

As a general matter, I applaud this. It’s great to get reminders while you can still take action, and I appreciate the ILPTO doing this.

However, there seems to be a glitch in the implementation of the system. Specifically, in two files, we just received warning letters telling us that we didn’t respond to an OA that issued sometime in 2023, and that we have 30 days to respond to respond to the OA.  Except that we most definitely responded in both of those cases, because both cases have been allowed, and we now have to pay the issue fee in each case, in one of them in a few weeks from now, in the other next week.

Giving the ILPTO the benefit of the doubt, I suspect that what happened here is that they want to remind us that the issue fees are due, but the system incorrectly read something and referred to an OA rather than the issue fee.

They get an “A” for effort, anyway.

Israel PTO Patent Electronic Filing System is Still Offline.

Yesterday the Israel PTO announced that its new patent electronic filing system would be online today as of 13:30.

As predicted, the system wasn't online then and still isn't online now. So if you have to file something today at the Israel PTO, good luck.

At least the ILPTO had the sense and the decency to send out an email at 13:39 telling us that the system remains offline, and that they'll tell us when it's fixed. If this was the USPTO, it would be hours, if at, before the office acknowledged that there was a problem.

It would have been nice if they'd given us similar advance warning about the scheduling and length of the training session for the new system that took place yesterday, instead of a mere four days' warning for a session that started 15 minutes late and then lasted two hours.

Israel PTO Electronic Patent Filing and Search To Be Offline April 28

The Israel PTO just announced that its patent electronic filing system and the patent database will be offline tomorrow, April 28, from 07:00 to 13:00.

When they tried this in September 2023, they said the system would offline from midnight to 10:30. But it wasn't ready by the appointed hour. Wasn't back online the following day either.

No, it took them nearly five days to get the system up and running again.

And that was only for electronic filing, not the database too. That database, by the way, now constitutes the official register of the ILPTO. 

As of this writing, we still don't know what changes are supposed to be implemented - that will be revealed to us a few minutes from now.

Still, the Israel has yet to screw up its IT systems as badly as the USPTO has screwed up both its patent and trademark filing and search systems. Let us hope that statement remains true even after the forthcoming changes.