We’ve recently heard from the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore that it plans to close off the foreign route for Singapore patent applications and to abolish supplementary examination.
Under the proposals, it will no longer be possible to request supplementary examination to rely on the grant of a foreign corresponding application for Singapore applications filed on or after 1 January 2017 .
Only applications that have been examined for novelty and non-obviousness under Singapore patent law will be allowed to grant as patents in Singapore.
The time limits for filing a statement of inventorship are set out in the Rules, but are different depending on the type of application involved. Failure to file a statement of inventorship could lead to the application being treated as having been abandoned.
Since yesterday’s post on the topic of inventorship in Singapore, we have been made aware of some potentially misleading information on the Internet:
This passage appears to indicate that a Statement of Inventorship is not required to be filed, unless IPOS calls for it.
If so, this statement couldn’t be more wrong. In fact, if you don’t file a Statement of Inventorship in time and wait for IPOS to ask you to file it, you might end up with a patent application that is treated as having been abandoned!
This post is part of a series exploring inventorship of patents and inventions in Singapore.
Under Singapore Patent Law, in the first instance, a patent may be granted primarily to the inventor or joint inventors of an invention. Section 2(1) of the Patents Act helpfully defines an “inventor” as the “actual deviser of the invention”.
It is not always the case that the invention belongs to the inventor or inventors, however. In fact, it is quite common for the invention to belong to another party, who is the applicant of the patent application for the invention described.