Last week the Israel PTO announced by email proposed amendments to the regulations (rules) governing certain aspects of practice before the Israel PTO in all four areas over which it has jurisdiction - patent, trademark and design applications and registrations, and appellation of origin applications and registrations. I did not find a corresponding announcement on the ILPTO website, but the following links to the draft regulations appear in the email announcement:
Comments are due by the end of the day on Sunday, June 4.[1] Sadly, the announcement doesn’t include an email address to which to send comments. Rather, the announcement refers to each of the web pages above, which include links for people to provide comments, although I have not yet checked to see that those links work.[2]
The principal change proposed, and on the only one common to all the proposals, is a change in the procedures for filing power of attorney. In tomorrow’s post, I’ll relate to those proposed changes and their shortcomings. In this post I’ll focus on the current shortcomings concerning powers of attorney. Although I’m going to specifically POAs with respect to patents, the ILPTO has proposed the same change with the same language in the relevant regulations for trademarks, designs and appellations of origin as well.
As one would expect, in Israel applicants for patents may act pro se, or such applicants may appoint an authorized representative.[3] The relevant provisions are set forth in rules 16 and 17 of the Patents Regulations. Rule 16 concerns providing the ILPTO with an address for service in Israel; for pending patent applications, the applicant must provide the office with such an address. Per the most recent amendments to the regs from several years ago, the applicant may also provide an address for email service of documents.[4]
Rule 16(f) specifies that if the applicant is represented by an authorized representative per rule 17 (see next paragraph), then the address for service must be the address of that representative. Since probably upward of 99% of patent applications in Israel are filed via representatives, and the regulations also stipulate that representatives must file electronically, de facto these provisions collectively mean that almost all correspondence with the ILPTO must be conducted electronically.
Rule 17 concerns the appointment of representatives, and says that, by way of a written power of attorney that “shall be delivered to the ILPTO”, an applicant may appoint a representative to act on the applicant’s behalf before the ILPTO. Rule 17 also says that a person may not appoint more than one representative per matter, unless the multiple representatives are “partners or they work together in the same single office”.
It’s not always possible to get a signed power of attorney prior to filing a patent application, so the practice of the ILPTO has been to allow practitioners to submit a patent application without a POA, and then to requisition a POA (asserting rule 17 as granting authority to requisition the POA), giving the applicant a month to provide the POA. Failure to file the POA will result in abandonment of the application.
As someone licensed to practice before both the USPTO and ILPTO, and who also makes use of WIPO’s ePCT filing system, I’ve long found the ILPTO’s approach to be suboptimal (to put it mildly), and possibly ultra vires.
Specifically, what practitioner is going to file a new patent application that he hasn’t been instructed to file? The electronic filing system that an Israel practitioner must use to file the application won’t allow the new application to be filed without paying the filing fee (around $600 for an application of 100 or fewer pages); why would any practitioner spend that money if he hasn’t been told he’ll be reimbursed?
More importantly, a practitioner’s license is his livelihood. What practitioner is going to knowingly file an application, or a document in an application, that he hasn’t been authorized to file, particularly if doing so will prejudice the putative client’s interests? It’s a safe bet that the practitioner is only going to file something if he’s been instructed to do so, or if he hasn’t received specific instructions but has a general standing instruction from the client to keep the case pending. It doesn’t take a genius to understanding that doing something to deliberately harm the applicant or patentee could not only cost the practitioner money in a tort suit, it could be the end of his career. (For readers who have studied Gemara, this is an example of one of the definitions of the term “migo” מיגו.)
The USPTO recognizes this reality, and operates accordingly. As in Israel, US Rule 1.33(a) requires that a new application include a correspondence address. But Rule 1.33(b) says that amendments may be filed by a practitioner who is on record as having power of attorney, or by a practitioner acting in a representative capacity per Rule. 1.34. And Rule 1.34 establishes when a practitioner who is not of record (viz. for whom a power of attorney has not been recorded) files papers, “his or her personal appearance or signature shall constitute a representation to the United States Patent and Trademark Office that under the provisions of this subchapter and the law, he or she is authorized to represent the particular party on whose behalf he or she acts”.
That’s a smart arrangement: it makes it clear that the practitioner can act without a POA, but by doing so he’s effectively certifying that he’s authorized to act.
Additionally, the USPTO as a matter of policy still requires a POA for the filing of two documents: an express abandonment of an application or patent, or a terminal disclaimer that foreshortens the term of the patent. That makes sense too, since those acts irreversible and, on their face, prejudicial to the applicant/patentee’s interests.
What this means in practice is that, for example, if an applicant wants a new US practitioner to take over a file, the new practitioner can do so without having to wait to obtain a power of attorney. Of course, if the new practitioner wants to receive notifications from the USPTO about new correspondence in the case, and the like, he’ll need to record a change of correspondence, but that’s a separate matter, and doesn’t prevent the new representative from filing responses or paying fees.
The USPTO arrangement also means that if, for example, a solo practitioner will be going on vacation, and some response will need to be filed or a fee will need to be paid, he can arrange for a colleague to attend to the matter.
So for the ILPTO to insist on the submission of a signed POA as condition for continued representation of the applicant in most situations is, from the practical standpoint, not just silly, but counterproductive.[5]
Additionally, the threat of closing the file because a POA isn’t submitted is legal hogwash, both statutorily[6] and from the commonsense standpoint: if an application is incomplete upon filing (e.g. it contains illegible drawings), and the defect is never cured, or if an applicant doesn’t respond to an examination report, those could be a reason for closing the file. But failure to submit a POA? It’s not in the same league. And in point of fact, I have had cases that were filed without a POA, in which the ILPTO has asked for a POA, which I prosecuted through to grant.
Another problem with the present system in Israel is that, as mentioned earlier, Rule 17 says that an applicant or patentee may not appoint more than one representative per matter, unless the multiple representatives are “partners [a term not defined in the patent statute] or they work together in the same single office”. That reflects a particular way of thinking about how people work or should work together that is outmoded: people work together in different constellations and with different arrangements, and it’s unreasonable for the ILPTO to try to force them into a particular work model. Such a narrow conception of what constitutes “working together” is also prejudicial to applicants, who may want a particular team of practitioners to work on a matter, even though the practitioners are not “partners” and do not “work together in the same single office”.
Inasmuch as the present regulations limit practitioners’ freedom to make their own work arrangements, and limits applicants’ ability to choose their representatives, this narrow conception of “working together” also stands in contravention to two so-called “basic laws”, the “Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation” and the “Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom”, which the “High Court of Justice” (not to be confused with the Supreme Court) regards as having constitutional status.
By contrast, USPTO allows an applicant to appoint whichever registered practitioners it wants to represent it before the USPTO.[7] Similarly, in PCT applications, WIPO makes it possible for any combination of people that the applicant desires to have access to its PCT applications, with varying levels of authorization.
A related point is that whereas the USPTO will send out notices of correspondence in a file to up to three email addresses, and WIPO’s ePCT allows for notifications to be sent to multiple email addresses, the ILPTO will only send such correspondence to a single email address.
There’s also the problem (discussed in an earlier blog post) that the Israel PTO does not have a mechanism that enables patentees to provide correspondence addresses for maintenance fees only.
As will be discussed in tomorrow’s blog post, the ILPTO’s proposed amendments attempt to address only one of these matters, and fails even at that.
[1] Like in the USA, statutes in Israel often omit details about the specific means of implementation of the statutes, and say that the details will be set forth in implementing regulations. For readers familiar with the rule-making process in the USA, the process in Israel is similar, except that formally the job of enacting the regulations is assigned to a particular minister, and the regulations must be approved by the relevant committee in the Knesset, rather than being enacted by the administrative body itself (following notice-and-comment procedures) as is the case in the USA. In the present case, it’s clear that the impetus for these amendments is coming from the Israel PTO itself, which will then ask the Minister of Laws (a title which is unfortunately mis-translated as Justice Minister, even though the Hebrew term משפטים does not mean “justice” and is never, ever translated that way in any other context) to sign them and bring them to the committee for approval.
[2] Why allow members of the public to send a single document with comments when you can have them go to six different web sites and provide six separate sets of comments?
[3] Namely, a licensed patent practitioner who has a technical degree and has passed the ILPTO licensing exams, or, in keeping with the practice in banana republics, any one of the tens of thousands people who don’t have a technical background but have a law degree as a first degree and have passed the lawyer licensing exams – because we all know that law school is much, much more difficult than getting a STEM degree and passing the lawyer exams imbues people with wisdom otherwise not imparted to mere mortals.
[4] Until now, Rule 16 precluded email service of the patent certificate itself, and required the office to send a paper certificate, but the proposed amendments will allow the patent certificate itself to also be sent by email; patentees will have the option of requesting a paper copy from the ILPTO, presumably for a fee.
[5] The ILPTO’s position on this is that its hands are tied, and that Rule 17 as presently worded forces it to require the submission of a written POA. I find that disingenuous, because there are other areas where the ILPTO in effect doesn’t enforce the statute or the rules. But as those situations sometimes accrue to clients’ benefit, I’m not going to discuss them here.
[6] The ILPTO says that its notice to submit a POA constitutes a “notification of defects” under section 20 of the statute, and therefore failure to reply is cause to close the file, but that’s just plain wrong. Section 20 of the statute says that if the examiner or the Commissioner find that the (claimed) invention is unpatentable or that the application fails to meet the requirements of sections 11-16A of the statute (none of which say anything about a power of attorney), the then the Office will notify the applicant. Section 21 says that if the applicant doesn’t fix the defect(s) within a specified time, the Commissioner will refuse the application. So there’s no statutory basis for closing the file – viz., refusing the application – for failure to file a POA.
[7] The mechanism by which this is done at the USPTO will wait for a later blog post.
Recent Comments