Yesterday I discussed the ILPTO’s new policy requiring applicants, in certain situations, to submit to the ILPTO certified copies of their own Israel priority documents, notwithstanding the fact that the ILPTO is already in possession of those documents.
Apparently the ILPTO is actively looking for ways to reach greater heights of inanity. A colleague has now related that the ILPTO will not provide him with a certified copy of an issued patent because he is neither the agent of record nor the applicant.
That position doesn’t just defy logic. Someone at the ILPTO needs to go back and read the patent statute, section 168 of which says:
|
168. |
עיון לציבור וקבלת נסחים מאושרים |
(א) הפנקס והמסמכים שיש לשמרם לפי סעיף 167 יהיו פתוחים לעיון הקהל; אולם מסמכים הנוגעים לבקשת-פטנט שעדיין לא פורסמה לגביה הודעה לפי סעיף 16א או לפי סעיף 26, לפי המוקדם, לא יהיו פתוחים לעיון. (ב) כל אדם יהא זכאי לקבל נסח מאושר בחותם הלשכה מכל דבר שבפנקס או מהמסמכים הפתוחים לעיון לפי סעיף זה אם ביקש זאת בדרך שנקבעה ואם שילם את האגרה שנקבעה. |
168. Public Inspection and Certified Copies
(a) The Register [of patents] and the documents that must be retained [by the Office] per section 167 shall be open to public inspection; however, documents pertaining to a patent application for which a notice per section 16A or 26 has not yet been published [i.e. which has not yet been opened for public inspection], whichever is earlier, shall not be open for inspection.
(b) Any person shall be entitled to obtain a certified copy, impressed with the seal of the Office, of anything in the Register or from the documents which are available for public inspection in accordance with this section, if he so requested in the manner to be prescribed [in the Regulations] and paid the prescribed fee.
If that’s not a clear instruction, you shouldn’t be working at the ILPTO.
Even without that particular part of the patent statute, my colleague would still be entitled to have the ILPTO provide him with a copy of the patent (presumably certified as being a true and correct copy from the ILPTO’s records) under the Freedom of Information Act (חוק חופש המידע).
Ah, who cares? What’s a little refusal to follow statutory instructions between friends?