Questions on requirement of filing recordal of assignment and license agreement

Question:

Please advice on the requirements of filing recordal of assignment and License Agreement for (1) design registrations and (2) trademarks registrations.

Answer:

	DESIGN	TRADEMARK
1.) Is recording the assignment agreement and / or the license agreement optional, or is it required for the agreements to be enforceable and effective in Malaysia.	The recording of the assignment agreement and/or the license agreement is required in order for the agreements to be enforceable and effective in Malaysia.	The recording of the assignment agreement and/or the license agreement is required in order for the agreements to be enforceable and effective in Malaysia.
2.) If it is optional, do you typically recommend clients to record such agreements? Are their particular benefits of recording that making it advisable to do so?	N/A	N/A
3.) What is required to record a license agreement? An assignment?	- A copy of the license/assignment document. - A copy of a power of attorney document (ID Form 10)	- A copy of license agreement; and - A copy of Deed of assignment
4.) Do the agreements need to contain any specific information/ provisions to be recognized, valid, and/or recorded?	No specific information or provision is needed for the agreements to be recognized. However the design application or registration number must be contained in the agreement.	No specific information or provision is needed for the agreement to be recognized. However for the Deed of Assignment, the following requirements must be provided; - Signature of both the Assignor and Assignee must be witnessed - The effective date; - The full name and address of Assignor and Assignee; - To state the value whether the assignment is with goodwill
5.) If the actual agreement must be recorded (as opposed to certain pieces of information from the agreement), is it possible to submit a redacted version?	It is possible to submit a redacted version of agreements as long as the important provisions could be found in such version.	It is possible to submit a redacted version of agreements as long as the important provisions could be found in such version.

For more information, contact us at: malaysia@mirandah.com

Questions on requirement for filing design application

Question:

Please advice on questions regarding filing requirements for design applications in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Answer:

	MALAYSIA	INDONESIA	THAILAND	VIETNAM
1.) Can a design application claim priority to a utility application? If not, what effect will a utility application have on the design application?	No. It will not have any effect. Designs can only claim priority from another design application.	No, a design application may only claim priority from a design application. Under current practice, the Registry may cross examine an application and there is a possibility that the utility patent may be a bar to the design application. However, the Registry is not consistent with this cross examination system and the design application will be independently examined.	No. A design application cannot claim priority to a utility application. A utility application has no effect on the design application.	No, a design application cannot claim priority to a utility application. The design application will lack novelty if the drawings/ photos of the utility application have been disclosed.
2.) When a design application is filed, what is the filing fees based upon (per application or per embodiment included in the application)?	Per embodiment. In Malaysia, we practice a multiple design filing system, whereby designs with many embodiments can be filed as multiple applications within the same Locarno classification.	The filing fees are based on per application filed. However, if there are many embodiments which with different design views, the examiner will advise us to file divisional applications for those different embodiments.	The filing fees are pee application, on a one product one application basis.	The filing fees based upon the number of embodiment included in the application (number of drawings) and other items.
3.) Can dashed line be used to exclude elements from the design (e.g., “The broken-line disclosure in the views is generally understood to form part of the environment in which the claimed design is embodied, but forms no part of the claimed design.”)	Yes, dotted/dashed lines can be used to exclude elements from a design. Only straight/solid lines will be protected.	Dashed lines can be used to exclude elements from the design	No. Dashed lines cannot be used to exclude elements from the design and only clear lines are required to represent the element of said design.	No. Dashed lines/ broken-lines are always required by the examiner to be excluded from drawings. At present, partial designs are not acceptable by the Vietnamese patent office.
4.) Can dashed-dot-dashed ( . ) be used to show that the number of the element is not limited (e.g., “The dash-dot-dash lines indicate a repeating pattern of _Y_, wherein the _X_ _ may have _Y_ of any shape and number that follow this repeating pattern.”)	N/A	There is no specific stipulation relating to this matter. We are of opinion it can be used.	No. Dashed-dot-dashed ( . ) cannot be used to show that the number of the element is not limited.	Yes. It is possible.
5.) Can/should shading be used on the figures?	Not necessary	Shading can be used.	Shading can be used on the figures if it does not make the figures unclear.	No.
6.) Is there any required number of views? If yes, can further views also be presented?	No. However, we advise providing 8 views, i.e. perspective view, front view, rear view, top view, bottom view, right side view, left side view.	There is no limitation for the number of views. However, Registry recommends that a minimum of eight views should be included in the design application, i.e., Perspective view, front view, back view, left side view, right side view, bottom view and top views.	Yes. The Department of Intellectual Property Thailand (DIP) requires at least 7 views. Further views are also acceptable.	Yes. The 7 required views (for each embodiment) are: perspective, front, back, right side, left side, top, and bottom views. Further views are also acceptable to demonstrate the design (such as a photo/ drawing of a product comprising the part having the design).
7.) Are there any other points/issues that should be considered when preparing or filing a design application?	- Drawings need to be clear and if possible be provided in jpeg or similar formats. - Color cannot be protected in design - A power of attorney (ID Form 10) signed by the applicant must be filed at the time of filing. - Priority documents in languages other than English needs to be accompanied by a certified English translation. - Any application claiming priority shall be filed within six months from the priority date.	- At least a signed POA shall be available at the time of filing, information on inventor & its nationality is required. - Any application claiming priority shall be filed within six months from the priority date. - The design protection covers configuration, lines and shape, if there is any required colors to be protected, the application shall be filed based on the intended colors. However, we would recommend for black and white filing in order to have broader protection.	When preparing or filing a design application, drawings should be clear and related to all the views.	All the views (7 views) must be similarly proportionate (the same size) and are clear.
8.) Is there any standard of form language that should be included in a design application in any of the listed countries?	English is acceptable	The language shall be in Bahasa Indonesia.	The title of an application should be related to the product. However, in case of the title does not convey the product, the applicant might use the description depicting the product. Therefore, the title will be related to the drawings. The Applications must be filed in Thai and all documents must be translated into Thai.	Please use English.
9.) Are there any traps that we should avoid?	N/A	Protection on color design should be carefully considered.	Title and drawings should communicate to ordinary people in the way what the Applicant wants his design to get protected.	N/A

For more information, contact us at: malaysia@mirandah.com

National Security Restrictions and Requirements for Foreign Filing License

Under the patent Law, what are the national security restrictions and requirements prior to patent filings by MNC Applicants, what are the national security provisions (in general); national security provisions in China, India and other ASEAN countries?

At this day and age, more and more multi-national companies are expanding their businesses and R&D operations overseas, hoping to take advantage of the accessibility of diverse ideas and experience of the global human capitals through setting up of research facilities and conducting research and development in multiple countries. Management of innovations and IPs derived from these global R&D operations can be quite a challenging task and requires the IP Manager/ attorney to be familiar with the respective national laws governing the protection of the invention created in those countries.

For example, some pertinent issues may arise when it comes to patenting inventions developed in countries remote from the home office and even greater issues when inventions are jointly conceived by inventors in several countries or by non-native inventors residing in the countries. It is absolutely critical to know the laws of those countries having national security restriction and provisions requiring that inventions made within their territory and/or inventions made by residents of their country first file locally or separately obtain a security clearance before filing outside the country.

The consequences of not complying with or contravening all applicable national security requirements can be harsh and severe, ranging from fines, through loss of local patent rights, to criminal penalties, including imprisonment. In this article we will examine national security requirements in general and looking in detail at the requirements in India, China and S.E. Asia, regions which are enjoying the influx of R&D activities from foreign MNC entities.

National Security Provisions - In General 

National security provisions in patent laws are not new. Many countries have similar laws to protect their national security interests. For example, the United States of America has had a requirement for patent applicants to obtain security clearance before filing patents outside the US for many years. 35 U.S.C. 184 states:

"Except when authorized by a license obtained from the Commissioner of Patents a person shall not file or cause or authorize to be filed in any foreign country prior to six months after filing in the United States an application for patent or for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model in respect of an invention made in this country ....” 

The penalty for filing outside the US without obtaining a "foreign filing license" from the USPTO is loss of US patent rights (35 U.S.C. 185):

"Notwithstanding any other provisions of law any person, and his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, shall not receive a United States patent for an invention if that person, or his successors, assigns, or legal representatives shall, without procuring the license prescribed in section 184, have made, or consented to or assisted another's making, application in a foreign country for a patent or for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model in respect of the invention .... " 

(If a foreign filing is made without a §184 license in error and without deceptive intent, a retroactive license may be obtained.)

It is interesting to note that the US restriction relates only to inventions "made in this country [i.e. US]." As such, the restriction does not apply if the invention is made overseas by inventor who is a US citizen or resident. China (Article 20.1) and Russia (Article 35) too have similar provisions and only concerned with inventions made within its countries.

Other countries, however, impose their requirements not on where the invention is made, but on the residence of the inventor and/or applicant for a patent. While the residency requirement will generally be applicable for all inventions made in those countries, the laws may also extend to patent applications on inventions made by their residents anywhere in the world.

For example, Section 23 of the UK law provides similar provisions on inventions with military technology or whose publication would be detrimental to national security filed by residents of the UK. However, their statute essentially leaves the decision regarding military technology or detrimental publication to the applicant. Likewise, Article 41 of the Republic of Korea seems similar to the UK. There is no mandatory first filing for a security review required, but there are provisions for a security "hold" to be put on an application as well as procedures for obtaining permission to file abroad for inventions related to national security. The decision on whether such permission is required seems to be left to the applicant. Sections 50, et seq. of the German patent law are parallel to the UK and KR, leaving the decision on whether to first file or seek permission to file abroad to the applicant. The German law does give some non-specific guidance by defining a state secret in Section 93 of the criminal code.

These examples show the wide variety of requirements related to national security provisions in global patent laws. With researchers and inventors easily travelling around the globe in their pursuit of research opportunities and with the ease of collaboration between inventors in various countries leading to a single invention, it is a daunting task to keep track and be in full compliance with the provisions of all the applicable national security requirements.

National Security Provisions in China. India and the ASEAN Countries

China, India and the ASEAN countries are some of the fastest growing areas for R&D activity. Not only are more and more multi-national companies are setting up R&D centers in these countries, personnel who may be considered residents of these countries may find themselves contributing to inventions in countries outside their country of residence. For example, it is now common to find that a company employee resident in India, Singapore or Malaysia is the sole or a joint inventor on an invention made in China or the US. A graduate research student resident in one of these countries may contribute to a patentable invention while doing research at a cooperating foreign university. These practical situations again raise important questions regarding how to best protect the inventions while at the same time be in compliance with national security laws.

Peoples Republic of China:

For inventions developed in China, knowledge of the law regarding national security should provide sufficient guidance to avoid problems. As mentioned above, China has a national security law similar to the US. If the invention was developed in China, clearance to file outside China must be obtained before any foreign filings are made on inventions developed in China. Clearance can be obtained either by filing a domestic patent application along with a request for clearance, or filing an international (PCT) application in the Chinese receiving Office. Additionally, a request for clearance may be made without filing a patent application. A domestic patent application filing and a request for clearance without a domestic patent filing must be made in the Chinese language. An international application can be filed in the ROICN in either Chinese or English. If the applicant is not received notification that the application is undergoing a security examination within four months of the request or filing, then the applicant is free to file outside China. Similarly, if a decision on a security examination is not issued within six months of the request or filing by either a permanent security hold or granting clearance, the applicant is free to file outside China. It generally takes between 2 to 3 months to receive security clearance based on a request for clearance. The penalty for failure to comply with the law is loss of Chinese patent rights. If the application is judged to disclose Chinese State secrets, the penalty ranges from disciplinary sanctions up to criminal prosecution.

India, Malaysia and Singapore:

India, Malaysia and Singapore have national security restrictions based on the residency of the inventor or applicant regardless of where the inventive activity occurred (India, Section 39; Malaysia, Section 23A; Singapore, Section 34). The laws and procedures in all three countries are similar as are the penalties for failure to comply with the security requirements. Security clearance can be obtained by filing a patent application locally and then waiting the specified time period before making any foreign filings. The time period varies by country:

6 weeks in India and 2 months in Malaysia and Singapore. Security clearance can also be obtained by applying for permission to file abroad (foreign filing license) in the absence of filing a local patent application. Following an application, a foreign filing license will be issued in about 21 days in India (although it has been known to take up to a month), 1 to 2 days in Singapore and 3-5 working days in Malaysia. The penalties for failing to comply with the law are a fine and up to 2 years imprisonment in all three countries. India, like China and the US, further considers the patent application for the invention to be abandoned.

Other Countries in S.E. Asia:

Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines do not have such provisions in their laws and one need not be concerned regarding inventions developed in these countries or with residents of these countries inventing elsewhere.

Discussion

When an applicant has to be in compliance with a number of national security laws, determining how best to proceed can be difficult. Fortunately, each of these countries has provisions for obtaining security clearance without first filing a patent application. Some of these clearance procedures are quick (SG and MY) while others can delay the time needed before the first filing can be made (IN and CN). Careful planning, allowing adequate time, is necessary to insure filings are made in sufficient time to insure that there is no public exposure or other novelty destroying event prior to the actual first filing date.

In addition to planning for the additional time to comply with national requirements (and translation in some cases), the position of each national law regarding seeking security clearance from another country must be determined. Since these laws are designed to keep state secrets from becoming part of the public domain, the applicant must ensure that the act of petitioning for clearance with a full enabling disclosure in one country does not inadvertently put the applicant in violation of the law in another country.

Finally, for countries establishing their requirements on the residency of the inventor(s) or applicant(s), a clear definition on who is considered as a resident is needed. Under Indian law the term "resident" is not defined in the patent law. Some people have turned to the Indian tax statutes for the definition of residency (i.e. person living in India for more than 182 days in the preceding year). This may or may not be acceptable as the patent law itself is silent on the qualification. Under Singapore law, we find the definition of resident is very broad and encompasses people who are residing in Singapore with a valid pass issued under the Immigration Act to enter and remain in Singapore for any purpose regardless of the nature of the stay. Because obtaining a foreign filing license in these countries is relatively easy and quick, taking a very conservative view of whether an inventor or applicant could be considered a resident seems the best practice.

It is always best to work closely with your local agent in each of the relevant countries to help resolve any problems associated with national security clearance and help to set up a standard procedure to keep one in compliance with all national security laws when inventions are made by residents of one of the countries having their requirements on residency and in cases where developments occur in multiple countries. Remember that it is important to do it right, up front, as most countries outside of the US do not have provisions for obtaining a foreign filing license retroactively after a filing has been made. Once the security law has been contravened, the consequences of being in violation can be severe including loss of patent rights, monetary penalty, or jail terms not exceeding 2 years.

For more information, contact us at: malaysia@mirandah.com

Please advice according to Malaysian law and regulations: If a product is ‘made in Italy’ or ‘made in Hungary’, but the product is termed as ‘made in EU’ (for European Union), would it be considered as valid?

Product labeling is governed by the Consumer Protection Act 1999 and it will be an offence to misrepresent.

 

The act requires that consumers be fairly and accurately informed of the country of origin of the imported goods into Malaysia and this is to be stated on the product label. Because EU is a community having member states that are independent and autonomous, it will not be possible to make something in Romania and label it as EU MADE. You can however label it as EU compliant in standards like CE.

 

Therefore, the Country of Manufacture must be stated on the product under the Malaysia Law.

 

For more information, contact us at: malaysia@mirandah.com

Please advise on the “working” of a patent and the necessity for the patentee to prepare an appropriate submission to prove “working” of a patent.

It is not required for the patentee to prove or submit evidences regarding “working” of the patent. It is the responsibility of any third party if they are interested to obtain the compulsory license on a granted patent.

Compulsory license can only be applied, after the expiration of three years from grant date (i.e. after 15 January 2013) by any third party on the following circumstances:

·     there is no production of the patented product or application of the patented product or the patented process in Malaysia without any legitimate reason; [ refers to “non-working” of a patent] or
 

·     there is no production of the patented product in Malaysia for sale in any domestic market, or there are some but they are sold at unreasonably high prices or do not meet the public demand without any legitimate reason.

 

However, prior to making an application for a compulsory license, the applicant must have made efforts to obtain authorisation from the owner of the patent on reasonable commercial terms and conditions, within a reasonable period of time of six months (from the initial efforts made) but such efforts have failed. Evidence of such efforts need to be submitted with the application.

The responsibility to prove the “non-working” of a patent in Malaysia is at the hand of the third party who intends to apply for the compulsory licence. The patentee, on the other hand, is not required to submit any evidence for “working” of the patent in Malaysia.

 

For more information, contact us at: malaysia@mirandah.com
 

Under the patent law of Malaysia, is there any circumstance under which Reference A below could be deemed prior art to Application Z below?

	A	Z
Application Type	PCT Application	National Phase Entry in Malaysia
Filing Date	1 January 2009	1 September 2010
Priority Claim	1 January 2008; US Provisional app.	PCT, 1 March 2009. US Provisional app, 1 March 2008.
Publication Date	1 July 2009
Applicant	B	C
Contents of app	Identical	Identical
Contention	Is A deem as prior art to Z?

  Note : B ≠ C 

A. PROSECUTION OF Z’s PATENT APPLICATION IN MALAYSIA

Section 14 (2) of the Malaysian Patents Act 1983 defines the term prior art on what material is taken into account in considering whether an invention is "novel". For sake of clarity, we reproduce the same as follows:

(2) Prior art shall consist of--

(a) everything disclosed to the public, anywhere in the world, by written publication, by oral disclosure, by use or in any other way, prior to the priority date of the patent application claiming the invention;

(b) the contents of a domestic patent application having an earlier priority date than the patent application referred to in paragraph (a) to the extent that such contents are included in the patent granted on the basis of the said domestic

            patent application.

In the context of A and Z as outlined above, we opine that A could be deemed as prior art in respect of Novelty during prosecution of Z’s application in Malaysia.

B. LITIGATION OF Z’S PATENT IN MALAYSIA

In any case if Z’s application prevails in Malaysia during prosecution and mature into a granted patent whereby A is not cited against Z and if there is litigation on Z, an example case law as provided below may apply.

In the case of SANOFI- AVENTIS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD & ANOR v. FRESENIUS KABI (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD;

The Learned  Judge in her Judgment dated 28 June 2011 (see para. 60 below) has pointed out that in considering "novelty" it covers both material which would have been available to the skilled addressee and also material contained within unpublished pending patent applications. Whereas for considering "inventive step" the "prior art"/"state of the art" is limited to material which would have been available to the skilled addressee: unpublished pending patent applications are not to be taken into account.

For sake of clarity, we reproduce para. 60 of the said Judgment:

[60] It is to be noted that the provisions of the two Acts are effectively the same in defining what is the "prior art"/"state of the art". For the purposes of considering "novelty" it covers both material which would have been available to the skilled addressee and also material contained within unpublished pending patent applications. For the purposes of considering "inventive step" the "prior art"/"state of the art" is limited to material which would have been available to the skilled addressee: unpublished pending patent applications are not to be taken into account.

PRIOR ART (NOVELTY)

Therefore, in the context of A which claims priority to US Provisional application dated 1 January 2008; the said US Provisional application is an unpublished patent application on 1 January 2008 which matures into a PCT application on 1 January 2009.  A is with an earlier priority date as compared to Z. Therefore, A is novelty destroying to Z.

PRIOR ART (INVENTIVE STEP)

As discussed above, unpublished patent applications are not considered as prior art in respect of Inventive Step. A was published on 1 July 2009 which was after the priority date of Z (1 March 2008). Therefore, A will not be taken into account in respect of prior art when considering “inventive step”.

For more information, contact us at: malaysia@mirandah.com

Please advise whether there is statutory protection system in Malaysia to define the owner's interest during this period from announcement to granting the patent after entering the Malaysian Phase.

A patent cannot be enforced after entering national phase until it has been granted.

 

However, an Applicant can issue a warning letter on infringement. The effect of issuing a warning notice is that:

 

1)    The Applicant has placed a constructive notice of infringement;

2)    Section 59 will apply upon grant;

3)    The damages from the act of infringement will be assessed from the date of constructive notice.

 

Section 59 of the Patent Act states: 

(1)  The owner of the patent shall have the right to institute Court proceedings against any person who has infringed or is infringing the patent.

(2)  The owner  of the patent shall have the same right against any person who has performed acts which make it likely that an infringement will occur, which in this Part is referred to as an “imminent infringement”.

(3)  The proceedings in subsections (1) and (2) may not be instituted after five years from the act of infringement.

 

For more information, contact us at: malaysia@mirandah.com

Please advise on the deadline for filing a divisional application

Divisional application can be filed (voluntarily) as a response to the first Substantive Examination Adverse report. Unless the Examiner has objected on unity of invention in the 2^nd or 3^rd Substantive Examination Adverse report, the applicant will not be able to file divisional application voluntarily at that stage.

If the deadline to file response to the first Substantive Examination Adverse report is extended, then the deadline for filing divisional application is also extended for the same period of time.

For more information, contact us at: malaysia@mirandah.com

Please advice on the law and business of software development/distribution in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Philippines.

	Malaysia	Singapore	Indonesia	Philippines
Statutory protection of Software	Computer programs are defined by Section 3 of the Copyright Act in Malaysia. Therefore, the distribution of software in Malaysia would fall within the definition of a ‘literary work’ and protected under Copyright. The Malaysian Patents Act does not specifically define Software. However the examination system allows for reliance on allowance of corresponding claims in other countries. Modified examination is available where the applicant has obtained the grant of a parallel Australian, European, UK, Japanese, Korean or US patent. As such, there is scope to rely on a software patent granted by the corresponding Patent Office as a basis to get the patent accepted under the modified examination route.	Software is protected by patents in accordance with the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Further, Section 7 of the Singapore Copyright Act also defines Computer programs as literary works and are protectable under copyright.	Computer programs are protected and governed by Article 12(1)(a) of the Copyright Act (“CA”) in Indonesia. Article 1 of the CA in Indonesia defines a computer program as a collection of instructions manifested in the form of a language, codes, diagrams, or any other forms, which when combined with media that can be read by computers will be able to make computers work to execute certain functions or to obtain specific results, including the preparation in designing the instructions. Therefore, the distribution of software in Indonesia is governed by the laws of copyright, in that any person seeking to develop and distribute any software must have prior consent or a license from the original owner to use such software. (Article 2(2) CA)	The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines protects; a. Databases and tables. b. It grants an exclusive rental right to the copyright owner. c. It recognizes and expands the protection of an author’s “moral rights”. d. That is, the right of an author to preserve the integrity of their works and their name. e. It penalizes the possession of infringing software for the purposes of sale.
Statutory protection of Software and database	Copyright - The life of the author + 50 years after his death Patent – 20 years	The life of the author + 70 years after his death  Patent – 20 years	The life of the author + 50 years after his death	The life of the author + 50 years after his death
Shrink Wrap license	When a consumer purchases and uses shrink-wrapped software, it is usually considered that they have agreed to the terms of the licensing agreement in the package. Therefore, the license would be deemed binding on consumers in Malaysia. Although the agreement is not conclusive, it does carry a lot of weight in Malaysia's court of law.	In Singapore, Shrink wrap licenses are binding upon the consumer who purchases the software.	Shrink wrap licenses are binding in Indonesia provided they are fair and not misleading.	When a consumer purchases a legitimate copy of a computer program/software, you will receive a license agreement. This agreement will tell you how you may use the computer program/software. If you do anything with the computer program/software, which is not permitted under the license agreement (or the IP Code), then you will have breached the Code and will be liable for the penalties.
Bulk License	An owner of the copyright of a software can assign his rights via a licensing agreement for the distribution of that software (Section 27 Copyright Act) Under Section 34 and 38, an owner of a software patent may grant assign his/her rights or grant a compulsory license for the use and distribution of that software.	An owner of the copyright of a software can assign his rights via a licensing agreement for the distribution of that software. Under Section 53, an owner of a software patent may grant assign his/her rights or grant a compulsory license for the use and distribution of that software.	The Copyright holder shall have the right to give a license to another party based on a licensing agreement to carry out any distribution or development of the software.	A person may only copy, adapt or rent, distribute or develop a computer program/software program if the copyright owner gives you the permission to do this. This permission is given in the form of a license. This license agreement will tell you how you may use the software. If you do anything with the software, which is not permitted under the license agreement, then you will have breached the Code and will be liable for the penalties.

For more information, contact us at: malaysia@mirandah.com 

Re-registration of Malaysia’s Patent in Brunei

Under Section 115 of the new Patents Order, 2011, any existing application for the re-registration of a granted UK, European Patent Office (designating UK), Malaysian or Singapore patent which has been filed before the commencement of the new Patents Order (1^st January 2012) will be granted as if the previous law had not been repealed.

Moreover, if a patent has been granted in the UK, European Patent Office (designating UK), Malaysia or Singapore within 36 months immediately before the commencement of the Patents Order, 2011 (1^st January 2009 – 31^st December 2011) and that patent is still in force on that date, an application for re-registration of that patent may be filed within 24 months from the date of commencement of the Patents Order, 2011 (1^st January 2012 - 31^st December 2013).

Furthermore, if a UK, European Patent Office (designating UK), Malaysian or Singapore patent application has been filed before the commencement of the Patents Order, 2011 and is still pending on that date, the applicant, may within 12 months of the date of issuance of the patent, may apply to re-register the foreign patent as if the previous law had not been repealed.

“Section 115 of the New Patent Order, 2011

(1) Where an application has been made under section 2 of the Inventions Act [Chapter 72) before the commencement of this Order, the Registrar may issue a certificate of registration under section 4 of that Act after that date as if that Act and any regulations made there under had not been repealed.

(2) Where a patent has been granted under any law relating to patents having effect in the United Kingdom, Malaysia or Singapore during the period of 36 months immediately before the commencement of this Order and that patent is still in force on that date, the proprietor of the patent may, within a period of 24 months from that commencement date, make an application for a certificate of registration and the Registrar may issue a certificate on such application as if the Inventions Act [Chapter 72) and any regulations made there under had not been repealed.

(3) Where an application for a patent has been made before the commencement date under any law relating to patents having effect in the United Kingdom, Malaysia or Singapore and the application is pending on that commencement date, the applicant may, within a period of 12 months from the date of issue of the grant of a patent on that application, make an application for a certificate of registration and the Registrar may issue a certificate on such application as if the Inventions Act (Chapter 72) and any regulations made there under had not been repealed.”

For more information, contact us at: malaysia@mirandah.com