The African Intellectual Property Organization, officially the Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OAPI), is a regional intellectual property organization and office comprising 17 member states across the African region.

Established on September 13, 1962, the OAPI is headquartered in Yaoundé, Cameroon, and encompases the member states of Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Comoros, the Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Chad and Togo. It operates under the revised Bangui Agreement of 1999 and 2015 with the primary objective of facilitating a unified and streamlined system for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights across its member states. In doing so, the Office helps to foster innovation, creativity, and economic development across the region. Moreover, the centralization of IP administration by the OAPI ensures that applicants and rights holders can secure and manage their IP efficiently and uniformly across member states.

The OAPI offers a wide range of services to facilitate the registration and protection of various forms of intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and geographical indications, among others. By providing a single application process that grants IP protection in all member states, the OAPI significantly reduces the administrative load and costs associated with obtaining IP rights in multiple jurisdictions individually.

This system not only simplifies the process for applicants but also ensures a consistent application of IP laws and standards across the region, promoting legal certainty and stability for businesses and individual inventors. Owing to the fact that all OAPI member states are governed by the common law set forth by the Bangui Agreement, it is not possible to designate certain member states for IP protection. Consequently, an OAPI registered right will be valid in all member states simultaneously.

In addition to facilitating a system for regional IP rights, the OAPI also allows for several initiatives and international collaborations with the aim of raising awareness and providing education to all stakeholders alike regarding the importance of intellectual property. As such, the organization conducts and hosts several training programs, workshops, and seminars aimed at enhancing the skill set and capacity of IP professionals, officials, applicants and the general public. These initiatives are an important element in the maintenance of a robust IP system in the African region, helping to cultivate a stable basis for the protection of innovation and subsequent economic upturn.

The OAPI also collaborates with multiple international organizations, including the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in order to align its interests and actions with global best practices and legal framework. Additionally, the OAPI is a party to both the Hague Agreement and the Madrid Protocol, allowing for the international registration of various IP types within the regional organization. Such collaborations can prove vital in forging an effective IP system for the region, also encouraging applicants from across the world to file for IP protection in OAPI member states.

The OAPI plays a pivotal role in supporting economic development by encouraging foreign investment and global IP applications. By providing a reliable system for the protection of an applicant's IP portfolio, the OAPI assists in facilitating an attractive environment for investors who seek to capitalize on the region's growth potential. This is due to the fact that secure and enforceable IP rights are essential for companies looking to establish operations in Africa, protecting their innovations and brand identity from infringement. Furthermore, the promotion of IP rights in the region also helps to provide for the commercialization of local innovations and the development of new industries, contributing to further economic growth and an increase in employment opportunities.

Overall, the OAPI is instrumental in advancing intellectual property protection across the African region, fostering innovation across its 17 member states through a centralized IP system, harmonized IP laws, and the facilitation of training in regards to the IP field. In providing a cohesive system for the protection of IP rights, the OAPI also acts as a catalyst for economic development in the region.

Managing the lifecycle of a patent, from the initial filing of a PCT application to maintaining its validity for 20 years or more, can be complex and resource-intensive. IP-Coster simplifies this process, offering a centralized platform to handle every stage of patent prosecution and protection efficiently. With our support, clients can focus on innovation while we manage the details.

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) enables applicants to file a single patent application, which can then enter national or regional phases to seek protection in up to 158 countries and regions. However, the PCT does not provides a single “international patent”. Instead, it streamlines the process of obtaining separate national or regional patents.

Filing traditional PCT application involves several steps: preparing documents, obtaining necessary signatures, and submitting physical copies to a receiving office. This process can be time-consuming, especially when coordinating with legal representatives and handling extensive paperwork.

Simplifying PCT Filing with IP-Coster

IP-Coster’s platform eliminates these hurdles by offering a centralized, user-friendly solution. Our experienced attorneys handle the entire PCT application process online, ensuring timely submission to any of the 89 available receiving offices. We manage all communication digitally, eliminating the need for physical paperwork and reducing administrative overhead.

Entering National or Regional Phases

Under the PCT agreement, applicants must transition their applications into the national or regional phases to seek patent protection in specific jurisdictions. This step typically occurs within 30 or 31 months from the earliest priority date, depending on the regulations of each country or region.

Navigating this phase requires tailored strategies for each jurisdiction. At IP-Coster, our team helps clients select the best options for their needs, ensuring a smooth transition and increasing the likelihood of successful patent grants.

Managing Independent Prosecution in Each Jurisdiction

During national or regional phases, patent prosecution proceeds independently in each chosen jurisdiction. IP-Coster partners with a global network of trusted agents to provide professional and reliable representation for our clients, ensuring compliance with local legal and procedural requirements.

Our platform allows clients to manage their intellectual property seamlessly across multiple jurisdictions, all within the same intuitive interface they used to begin their patent journey. From filing to grant, IP-Coster supports clients every step of the way.

Maintaining Patent Validity

Once patents are granted, maintaining their validity requires the timely payment of annuities in each jurisdiction. This ongoing obligation is essential to ensure that the rights conferred by the patent remain secure.

Through IP-Coster, clients can manage annuity payments efficiently, reducing administrative complexity and minimizing the risk of missed deadlines. This ensures patents remain secure while clients focus on leveraging their intellectual property.

Extending Patent Terms

In certain industries, such as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, patents may be eligible for term extensions to compensate for time lost during regulatory approval processes. These extensions can add up to five years to the standard 20-year patent term, depending on specific criteria and jurisdictional regulations. Each case requires a thorough assessment to determine eligibility for such extensions.

At IP-Coster, our experienced professionals are ready to evaluate your unique situation and guide you through the process of securing potential patent term extensions, ensuring that your intellectual property enjoys the maximum protection available.

Patent priority rights play a pivotal role in the protection process for inventions, however, securing and maintaining such priority rights can be complex. Patent applicants can find themselves unintentionally losing the priority right to their invention due to unforeseen circumstances, and whilst it may not be ideal, there are solutions that could lead to their reinstatement in certain situations.

Application

Patent priority rights grant applicants an exclusive right to file for patent protection for their invention based upon an earlier application filed by the applicant. Priority rights are facilitated in multiple areas through international treaties such as the Paris Convention and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), for example.

Some jurisdictions allow for the reinstatement of patent priority rights if the failure to meet deadlines and subsequent lapse of priority was due to "due care", or if the lapse of priority was due to "unintentionality." These jurisdictions typically include countries that adhere to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, however, specific criteria and procedures for reinstatement vary by jurisdiction. Due to the nuanced nature of priority restoration, it is crucial to consult the patent laws and regulations of each country for detailed information on the requirements and process for reinstatement of priority rights.

As per the PCT, in instances whereby a patent application possesses an international filing date later than the date the priority period lapsed, the applicant may request restoration of priority if done so within two months from the initial expiration date and if the Office finds that the correct criteria apply.

Grounds for reinstatement

Due Care

One available route for the restoration of priority is by applying for reinstatement based upon due care criteria. In the sphere of patent priority rights, due care refers to the level of responsibility and diligence expected from patent applicants in managing their applications and complying with relevant regulations and obligations. There are generally strict criteria which must be met in order to obtain reinstatement of a priority right via due care grounds.

If a lapse of priority is deemed to have occurred in spite of due care that a “reasonably prudent applicant would have taken” in the patent application process, the priority rights may be restored for an applicant by an IP Office.

In order to meet the standards for due care criteria for the reinstatement of priority rights, patent applicants must demonstrate that they have met a series of high standards as it is not sufficient for an applicant to simply demonstrate that they had generally taken precautions to adhere to time limits, for example.

Instead, the applicant should demonstrate that they exercised complete due care for the entire application, with the Receiving Office assessing all factual elements of the applicant's actions pertaining to the filing of the international application up to the expiration of the priority period. Any actions taken by the applicant after the expiration of the priority period will not be taken into consideration when determining whether the applicant took all actions necessary to demonstrate due care.

Due Care Criteria

The criteria that will typically be examined by an IP Office in order to establish that an applicant took all due care in order to reinstate a priority right include:

1. Lack of Knowledge by the Applicant
2. Lack of Financing by the Applicant
3. Human Error by the Applicant or Agent Himself
4. Miscommunication between the Applicant and the Agent
5. Absence from the Office by the Applicant or Agent
6. Human Error by the Agent’s or Applicant’s Staff
7. Docketing System Error
8. Facsimile or Software Submission Failure
9. Postal Service Difficulties
10. Force Majeure

The IP Office will factually analyze each of these criteria in accordance with the requirements and in comparison to what actions they would deem a “prudent applicant” would have made in order to have complied with the due care criteria.

Unintentionality

The Unintentionality Criterion is another possible route for the reinstatement of priority rights, and overall the requirements for the meeting of such criteria are less stringent than those needed to prove due care was taken by an applicant.

Overall, a Receiving Office should restore a priority right if it is found that any failings on behalf of the applicant to file the international application within the set priority period was unintentional. In order to meet this criteria, an applicant must be able to demonstrate that they did not deliberately refrain from filing the international application within the priority period and that they had every underlying intention to file within the priority period.

Unintentionality Criteria

Some of the most common circumstances that apply for the unintentionality ground for reinstatement of priority include:

1. Lack of awareness
2. Misunderstanding of the law
3. Reliance on incorrect information

In essence, the focus on whether the applicant should meet the unintentionality criteria or not should lay upon the Receiving Office’s assessment as to the applicant's intent at the expiration of the priority period, regardless of their intent before or after the priority period.

Statement of Reasons

Whether an applicant intends to rely on the due care or the unintentionality criteria in order to apply for the reinstatement of priority rights, the applicant is required to set forth to the Receiving Office the reasons why the application was not filed within the established period. These reasons should be submitted in the form of a “Statement of Reasons.”

With regard to said statement in relation to the due care criterion, it should contain a detailed description of all facts and circumstances that amounted to the late filing of the international application past the priority expiration. Further, the statement of reasons in relation to due care grounds for reinstatement should also depict any remedial steps or alternative remedies that the applicant sought in an attempt to file the application within the priority period.

If the grounds for reinstatement are based upon the unintentionality criterion, the statement of reasons should detail that any failure to comply and submit the international application within the assigned priority period was entirely not intentional. Should the Receiving Office not find the statement of reasons sufficient, they may invite the applicant to submit a revised statement.

Moreover, supporting evidence will assist alongside the Statement of Reasons in demonstrating that the lapse of priority for an applicant should be reinstated based on either the due care criteria, or the unintentionality criteria.

Overall, reinstatement of priority owing to grounds of due care is a more strict criterion that focuses on the proactive measures taken by individuals or entities to prevent intellectual property infringement, whilst the unintentionality criterion is typically more flexible.

In amongst the nuances of priority reinstatement regulations, there is hope for applicants who may have lost patent priority rights. If you are interested in learning more about the possibilities of reinstating patent priority rights, or if you would like our assistance with your matter, contact us via our social media or website at https://www.ip-coster.com!

According to Article 115 of the European Patent Convention, any person can submit their observations regarding a European patent application, or a European patent pending before the European Patent Office (EPO), in order to contribute relevant information to the examiners at the EPO. Such submissions are called third-party observations (TPOs) and serve as a valuable tool in the patenting process.

TPOs have an accelerating effect on a patent application. Submitting non-anonymous, well-supported observations pursuant to Article 115 and Rule 114 EPC substantiating a lack of patentability during examination can expedite the next Office Action from the EPO. This mechanism differs from the submission of a PACE request, as it only accelerates the next substantive communication from the EPO.

TPOs, which are sent to both the examiner and to the applicant for consideration and comment, not only help to prevent a patent from being wrongly granted, but can also lead to the amendment of patent claims. s Alongside the possibility of amendments to the patent claims, a TPO may also result in the granting of a patent with a lesser scope of protection.

Third-party observations can relate to patentability, novelty, inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure, lack of clarity, or amendments that are not allowed as per the rules. Observations must be filed while the proceedings are still ongoing to effectively influence the examination. TPOs filed after a patent has already been granted will be neither considered nor made available for file inspection.

TPOs are typically submitted using an online form via the EPO website, with no official fee required to be paid for the submission. They must be filed in one of the official languages of the EPO (English, German or French) and explain the grounds on which they are based. The supporting documents may be filed in any language, although the EPO may request the translation within a prescribed time period.

TPOs may be submitted anonymously, yet it is important to note that the submitting party mustn't already be a part of the proceedings and are not permitted to join the proceedings following the filing of the TPO. The EPO will not directly inform the filing party of any further action that was taken in response to their TPO, however the outcome will be confirmed in the office actions and published by the EPO.

Third-party observations are important in ensuring that the patent examination process is strong and accurate. By welcoming contributions from external parties, the EPO gains diverse knowledge and expertise, enhancing the examination process and making sure that granted patents meet high standards within the European Union.