Cantab IP

Automate or Stagnate: Some Thoughts from the FICPI Open Forum in Budapest

Tue, 29 Sep 2026 23:08:13 +0800

I had the pleasure of taking part in the FICPI 23rd Open Forum in Budapest in a session entitled Automate or Stagnate: How to Transform Your Legal Practice Step by Step.

The panel was moderated by Vikrant Rana (SS Rana & Co) and brought together three quite different perspectives. Luna Zhang spoke from the point of view of Kangxin Partners, a large Chinese IP firm with a substantial internal IT capability. Johan Örtenblad represented Noréns Patentbyrå, a Swedish firm of around 20 professionals.

And then there was me, representing Cantab IP, which is very much at the other end of the scale.

That made for quite an interesting discussion. On the panel we had firms of different sizes, with very different approaches to technology, all facing essentially the same issue: how do you get rid of repetitive work without losing control of the quality and accuracy that are crucial in our profession?

Why Automate in the First Place?

For Cantab IP, automation was never really a separate “digital transformation” project.

When I started the firm in 2007, I made a conscious decision that I wanted to keep it small. That meant we would not have the luxury of large numbers of typists, paralegals, records staff or administrative support.

So if something could sensibly be automated, there was a fairly strong incentive to automate it.

Over time, that has become part of the way the firm works. Our systems have developed around a central database, with information being reused across documents, correspondence and filing processes rather than being repeatedly copied and retyped.

One of the advantages of being small is that if something annoys me, I can usually decide fairly quickly to try to fix it. There is no committee and no IT department to negotiate with. In practice, that is not much of a disadvantage for me because I enjoy tinkering, fixing things and working out how systems operate.

Start With the Annoying Stuff

The session incorporated a number of audience surveys. One of these asked the audience how much of their daily work they thought could be automated with today’s technology. The responses were spread out, but a large proportion thought that either some tasks, or about half their work, could potentially be automated.

That was interesting, but the actual percentage is not so crucial to me. The more useful question is: what are you doing repeatedly that you would really rather not be doing?

My rule of thumb is that if I find myself doing the same thing more than once, I start asking whether some part of it can be automated.

That does not necessarily mean building a grand system. The solution might be a simple script that renames files. It might be a more involved integration that attaches the correct documents to a reporting email. Or it might simply be a better way of moving data from one place to another.

The best candidates for automation tend to be tasks which are repetitive, rules-based and have a reasonably predictable outcome. Those are usually sensible places to start, particularly where part of the process can be automated without losing control over the result.

Demos of Real-World Automations

Rather than simply talking about automation, we showed a few demonstrations.

I demoed one of our IPOS filing automations. The system takes data and documents from the case file, opens the appropriate form on the IPOS’ website, fills in the required information, uploads the documents and takes the filing through to the review stage. The final review and decision to submit are made by the attorney.

That last feature is crucial. I am not particularly interested in automation for the sake of removing humans from the loop. Rather, my aim is to remove the boring, mechanical parts of the process while keeping human judgement where it is needed.

The filing automation is built in Ruby, with a command-line interface and Keyboard Maestro and macOS providing the graphical interface. It was built when IPOS withdrew its batch-filing service, which had allowed data and documents to be packaged together and uploaded for filing.

The slightly cumbersome part is that, in the absence of an official API, the automation has to interact with the web interface. This means that if the IPOS website changes, the automation will have to be updated.

An audience member raised exactly that point. My view is that the better long-term solution is for patent offices to provide proper APIs so that users can interact with their systems in an official and stable way. I suggested that this is something FICPI and other professional bodies might usefully encourage IP offices to provide.

I also showed a second demo of directly importing bibliographic data from WIPO Patentscope into our database. Instead of locating a PCT application and manually copying applicant names, inventors, priority data and other details into a new case file, we can retrieve the information from WIPO through a paid subscription and create the case file directly from that data.

That saves time, but more importantly it avoids creating another opportunity for copying errors. It also reduces tedious work, interruptions and the mental effort spent on routine tasks, leaving more attention for work that actually requires judgement.

Buy it or Build it?

Johan’s perspective was particularly interesting because he enjoys software development, but has deliberately decided that his firm should not try to build and maintain everything itself.

He described the frustrations of working with a system, Patrawin, which has grown over many years around what is, in effect, an electronic version of a paper-file model. Tasks such as downloading files, renaming them, dating them and moving information around can consume a surprising amount of time without adding much value for the client.

Johan’s point is that automation has a cost in itself. Somebody has to build it, test it, maintain it and fix it when something changes. Just because you can automate something yourself does not necessarily mean that you should.

For a small script that may be trivial. For an entire practice management system, it is a rather different proposition. In that situation, adopting an existing system may make more sense than taking on the burden of building and maintaining one yourself.

Automation is Not the Same as Artificial Intelligence

This was probably the distinction I was most keen to make during the session.

A traditional automation is usually deterministic. If I give it the same inputs and the same rules, I would expect the same result to come out every time. Generative AI, on the other hand, is inherently probabilistic. If you ask the same question twice, you may well get different answers.

When deciding what you are comfortable automating, that difference needs to be borne in mind.

I find myself increasingly using tools such as Codex to help me write, debug and modify software. In my view, this is an extremely useful application of AI. However, there is a clear difference between asking AI to perform or automate a task and using AI to help build a tool which then performs a clearly defined task deterministically.

I am much more comfortable with the second approach where the result can be tested against a known expected outcome, so that I know what should happen and can detect when something has gone wrong.

People are Part of the System

A particularly good audience intervention raised another concern: if we rely too heavily on AI and automation, do we risk losing skills?

I think that is a legitimate concern. Resistance to automation is not always simply resistance to change. People may reasonably wonder whether a new tool will actually make their work better, whether they can trust it or whether they are slowly giving up skills they ought to retain.

Luna described how Kangxin involved staff in designing its systems, which helped people see that automation was intended to address genuine problems rather than simply replace them. Over time, staff could see improvements in efficiency and could also see that people were not simply losing their jobs as a result.

There is also a very practical reason to involve the people doing the work: they usually know where the pain points are. A paralegal who performs the same task 30 times a week may have a much better idea of what should be automated than somebody sitting several layers above them.

It is therefore important to involve users from the outset. They can identify the repetitive work worth automating, help shape the solution and tell you very quickly whether it actually improves the way they work.

What is the Return?

We also talked about return on investment during the session. I do not think this should be measured simply by revenue.

There is, of course, the obvious benefit of hours saved. But there is also error reduction, staff satisfaction, capacity and the ability to take on work without adding unnecessary administrative effort.

Luna reported significant efficiency improvements from automation at Kangxin. Johan made the point that in a smaller firm a very practical measure may simply be whether the attorneys, paralegals and clients actually prefer working with the new system.

For me, there is another cost which is difficult to quantify: concentration. A task that takes only a minute may still be expensive if it interrupts more valuable work ten times a day.

So the return from automation is often broader than a line in a financial calculation. It includes time, accuracy, capacity and the ability to preserve attention for work that actually requires professional judgement.

Using Automation to Direct Attention

Towards the end of the session, Vikrant mentioned an interesting tool developed internally at his firm. He called it SentiMeter.

Their system analyses incoming emails and gives an indication of sentiment, for example whether a message is neutral, positive or potentially negative and requiring attention. Instead of treating every incoming email in the same way, the firm can use the analysis to identify communications which may deserve a closer look.

I really liked that example because it showed how automation can move beyond simply saving keystrokes and start helping people decide where to direct their attention.

So When Should you Start Thinking About Automation?

Vikrant asked me when somebody thinking about automation should begin. My answer was that the best time was yesterday. If you missed yesterday, today will do.

The important thing is not to try to craft a grand automation strategy or wait for the perfect piece of software to be developed. Just start with a repetitive task and ask a simple question: why is a person still doing this?

That approach has shaped the way we have worked at Cantab IP since 2007. The tools will keep changing, particularly as AI makes it much easier to build software. What remains useful is the habit of looking closely at a process, understanding how it works and asking whether there is a better way to do it.

For patent attorneys, this way of thinking should feel rather familiar. Curiosity, technical understanding and a tendency to tinker with how things work are already part of the job. Automation is, in many ways, just another application of the same instinct.

So the next time you find yourself doing the same tedious task for the second time, stop and ask whether you really need to do it a third time.

Can You Register a Patent in Singapore? Patent Registration and Provisional Applications Explained

Wed, 02 Sep 2026 16:36:25 +0800

Someone trying to find out how to register a patent in Singapore, or who is looking for information about Singapore patent registration, will often begin with the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) website. IPOS uses expressions such as “patent registration” and “provisional application” in some of its public guidance.

Those expressions do not, however, reflect the terminology or structure of Singapore patent law. A patent is granted rather than “registered”, while the legislation does not create separate “provisional” and “complete” classes of patent application. This terminology can affect how applicants understand the Singapore patent application process, what is required at the initial filing stage and what may be done later.

“Patent Registration” and “Provisional Applications” on the IPOS Website

On some of its pages, the IPOS website describes the process of obtaining a patent as “registration”. The overview page, for example, is headed How to Register Patent Overview. The main page setting out the guidance is headed How to Register Patents and refers to a “registration process”, “registration criteria”, “patent registration” and a “registration timeline”.

IPOS also has a page headed provisional application. It describes a “provisional patent application process”, its “conversion to a complete application” and the benefit of a “simplified filing requirement and lower patenting cost”.

The same page advises that patent applications should be technically and legally accurate and that applicants may consider engaging a registered patent agent. However, in our view, the terminology used elsewhere on the page may still give applicants the wrong impression about the legal process and the work involved.

Can You Register a Patent in Singapore?

If you search for “Singapore patent registration” or “how to register a patent in Singapore”, you are generally looking for the process of obtaining patent protection in Singapore. That process involves filing a patent application with IPOS, search and examination and, if the requirements are satisfied, grant of the patent. For an overview of the actual procedure, see our Singapore Patent Guide.

The Patents Act 1994 uses “grant” when describing the outcome of the application and examination process. Section 30 provides that the Registrar “must grant the applicant a patent” if the conditions in that section are satisfied. Section 35 deals with publication of grant and the issuance of a certificate of grant. Section 36(1) states that the patent takes effect on the date on which the certificate of grant is issued. The Patents Act does not refer to the process of obtaining a patent as “registration”.

The Act does use the term “registration”, but in a different context. Section 42(1) requires the Registrar to maintain the Register of Patents, while Section 42(2)(a) allows the Rules to provide for “the registration of patents and of published applications for patents”. Rule 55 of the Patents Rules then identifies the particulars entered in the Register, including the date on which a patent is granted.

“Registration” in this context therefore concerns the recording of information in the Register. It should not be confused with the substantive process by which an applicant applies for a patent, the application is examined and IPOS grants the patent.

We believe it would be better for IPOS’s public guidance to use expressions such as “how to obtain a patent”, “applying for a patent”, “patent application process” and “grant of a patent”. These expressions describe more accurately what the applicant is seeking and the role performed by IPOS.

The term “registration” may also be misleading as it risks suggesting a largely administrative procedure, comparable to registering a business name or recording ownership of an asset. In our view, that does not adequately convey the work involved in identifying and defining an invention, preparing a patent specification and dealing with objections during examination.

An applicant may therefore underestimate the time and professional work required to obtain a patent, including the work involved in identifying and defining the invention, preparing an adequate patent specification and prosecuting the application before IPOS.

Our guide to filing a Singapore patent application explains the usual documents and filing procedure in more detail.

Can You File a Provisional Patent Application in Singapore?

Singapore does not have a separate class of patent application called a “provisional patent application” under the Patents Act or Patents Rules. However, a Singapore patent application can receive a filing date without claims if the statutory requirements for obtaining a filing date are satisfied. One or more claims must then be filed within the prescribed period if the application is not to be treated as abandoned.

Section 25(3) sets out the documents which every application must contain, including a description and one or more claims. However, it also allows an application to be initiated by documents complying with Section 26(1), which permits a filing date to be obtained without claims. Section 26(12)(a) however requires one or more claims to be filed within the prescribed period if the application is not to be treated as abandoned. The legislation therefore provides for claims to be filed later in the same application. It does not, however, create separate “provisional” and “complete” classes of application or provide for conversion between them.

It therefore seems to us that a clearer description of such applications would be an application “initiated without claims” or “filed without claims”.

Omitting Claims May Not Reduce Drafting Work

Section 25(5)(a) of the Patents Act 1994 requires the claims to define the matter for which the applicant seeks protection. Preparing claims requires careful thought about the applicant’s commercial product or process, possible variants and the known prior art.

In practice, many patent attorneys draft the claims first. The description and drawings may then be prepared by reference to the protection sought, as set out by the claims. This helps the attorney to ensure that the specification explains how the invention may be performed, supports the claims and contains useful alternatives or fallback positions if broader claims cannot be maintained during examination.

For this reason, where an applicant has instructed a patent attorney to prepare a patent specification, omitting the claims at filing is unlikely to produce a substantial saving in professional fees. This is because much of the analysis needed to frame the claims and prepare a description capable of supporting them will already have been done.

IPOS’s reference to a “simplified filing requirement and lower patenting cost” may nevertheless suggest that obtaining an early filing date without claims is a relatively simple and inexpensive step, without adequately conveying the professional work that may still be required to prepare an adequate patent specification before filing.

The official guidance issued by IPOS should therefore not imply that filing without claims removes the need to prepare an adequate first filing or necessarily results in substantially lower professional costs.

The Risks of an Inadequate First Filing

Section 25(4) requires the specification of a patent application to disclose the invention clearly and completely enough for a person skilled in the art to perform it. Section 25(5)(c) requires the claims to be supported by the description. In addition, Section 84(3) does not allow an amendment before grant if it would result in the application disclosing matter extending beyond what was disclosed when the application was filed.

Because of this, missing technical matter cannot simply be added later during examination before the Office. A sparse description may leave the applicant unable to pursue the breadth of protection later found to be commercially important or to add useful fallback positions during examination.

Section 17(2)(a) allows subject matter in a later application to take the filing date of an earlier application as its priority date only if it is “supported by matter disclosed” in the earlier application. Despite its early filing date, an earlier application may therefore be of little or no use as a priority application if it does not disclose enough of the relevant subject matter to support the priority claim made in the later application.

The page should therefore warn applicants that the value of an early filing depends on what the document filed on that date discloses. Otherwise, applicants may focus on securing an early date without understanding the importance of preparing an adequate specification.

How IPOS Could Improve the Guidance

IPOS could, in our view, improve the guidance without making it less accessible. The relevant web pages could be renamed and revised to refer to “applying for” and “obtaining” a patent. The present “provisional application” page could instead explain, using the terminology of the Act and Rules, how an application may obtain a filing date without claims, the period for filing those claims and the limits on adding subject matter later.

These changes would give first-time applicants a more accurate account of the process. They would also help applicants make realistic decisions about timing, drafting and cost before an important filing date is fixed.

What Applicants Should and Shouldn’t Do

An early filing should be treated as the foundation of the protection sought, not simply as a means of reserving a date. Before filing, an applicant should consider the commercially important embodiments, the variants a competitor might adopt and whether the specification contains enough technical information and fallback positions to support useful claims. In our view, these questions should be considered with a patent attorney as early as possible.

In particular, applicants should not simply file an existing manuscript, technical report or other in-house document to obtain an early filing date. Such documents are generally prepared to report particular experiments, results or embodiments, rather than to define the invention and support the scope of protection sought. They may therefore focus on a narrow embodiment, omit variants and alternatives and lack the broader disclosure or fallback positions needed to support commercially useful claims. If a properly prepared specification cannot be completed before the intended filing date, the applicant should seek urgent advice before deciding what, if anything, should be filed.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I register a patent in Singapore?

Strictly speaking, a patent is granted rather than registered in Singapore. An applicant files a patent application with IPOS, which must proceed through a search and examination procedure before it can be granted.

Does Singapore have provisional patent applications?

No. The Patents Act and Patents Rules do not establish a separate class of “provisional patent application”. A Singapore patent application may, however, obtain a filing date without claims. The claims must subsequently be filed within the prescribed period.

Can I file a Singapore patent application without claims?

Yes. An application may obtain a filing date without claims if the filing-date requirements are satisfied. This does not remove the importance of preparing an adequate description at the outset.

Can I add information to a provisional patent application later?

Calling the initial filing a “provisional application” does not permit new technical subject matter to be added freely later. Amendments before grant cannot extend beyond the matter disclosed in the application as filed.

IPOS Resumes SG Patents Fast and SG Trade Marks Fast

Sun, 30 Aug 2026 23:41:53 +0800

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) will resume accepting new requests under the SG Patents Fast and SG Trade Marks Fast acceleration programmes from 1 September 2026. This restores a paid acceleration option for Singapore patent and trade mark applicants.

As we reported in IPOS Suspends SG Patents Fast and SG Trade Marks Fast Programmes, IPOS suspended new acceleration requests on 4 January 2026 while it reviewed the programmes.

What Changes on 1 September 2026?

In Patents Circular No. 5/2026 and Trade Marks Circular No. 3/2026, both dated 12 August 2026, IPOS confirmed that it would resume accepting requests from 1 September 2026.

Applicants may request acceleration for patent search and examination requests, patent examination requests and applications to register trade marks filed on or after 1 September 2026.

The new circulars do not announce changes to the qualifying conditions, fees or target timelines. They also do not set out the outcome of IPOS’ review or explain why the programmes were suspended. Instead, IPOS refers applicants to the circulars issued when the programmes were introduced in May 2025.

On the information currently published, the change is limited to the resumption of new requests from 1 September 2026.

Where Can I Find Details of the SG Patents Fast and SG Trade Marks Fast Programmes?

The existing SG Patents Fast conditions, fees and target timelines are discussed in detail in our earlier article, Accelerated Search and Examination of Patent Applications at IPOS. The published conditions for both programmes are set out in Patents Circular No. 1/2025 and Trade Marks Circular No. 2/2025.

Nothing in the latest circulars changes our earlier view. Acceleration may be useful where an applicant has a genuine commercial reason for obtaining an early office action, but the fastest route is not necessarily the best route for every application.

Cantab IP can advise on whether SG Patents Fast, SG Trade Marks Fast or another prosecution route is suitable for a particular application. Please contact us if you would like advice or more details on these programmes.

Singapore Patent Foreign Filing Licences: Who is Caught Under Section 34?

Sun, 30 Aug 2026 22:00:00 +0800

Singapore patent law places restrictions on certain patent applications being filed outside Singapore without prior clearance from IPOS.

Section 34 of the Patents Act 1994 provides that:

“no person resident in Singapore may, without written authority granted by the Registrar, file or cause to be filed outside Singapore an application for a patent for an invention”

unless an application for the same invention has been filed in Singapore at least two months earlier and no directions under Section 33 remain in force. There is an exception where an application for the invention was first filed outside Singapore by a person resident outside Singapore.

Section 33 further provides for directions restricting publication or communication of information where it may be prejudicial to the defence of Singapore or the safety of the public. IPOS refers to written authority under Section 34 as “national security clearance”. Practitioners will often refer to this as a “foreign filing licence”.

Under the Patents Act, a contravention of Section 34 is a criminal offence. A person who files or causes an application to be filed contrary to the section may, on conviction, be fined up to S$5,000, imprisoned for up to two years or both.

Against that background of possible criminal sanctions, it is important to understand what the expression “person resident in Singapore” means, and whether, in particular, a “person” can include a company.

How the Question Arose

We were recently asked to advise on a proposed first filing at the UK Intellectual Property Office.

The facts were these: an invention had been made outside Singapore by an inventor who was not resident here. The inventor worked for a company which was a subsidiary of a Singapore company (a private limited company). The proposed applicant for the UK patent application was the Singapore company.

In checking whether Section 34 clearance was required, the foreign patent attorney handling the filing found an answer published by IPOS on the AskGov website.

As shown above, the page states:

“the term ‘person’ refers to an individual and does not include a company or legal entity.”

It goes on to say that the term refers to an individual resident in Singapore and later explains that persons residing in Singapore may include applicants, inventors and agents, including certain foreigners holding valid passes.

If that guidance were correct, the proposed Singapore corporate applicant could be excluded from the Section 34 analysis simply because it was a company.

We did not however think that was a safe interpretation.

What do the Patents Act and IPOS Guidance say?

Section 2(1) of the Patents Act (“Interpretation”) sets out definitions of terms used in the Act. It provides that, in the Patents Act, a:

“person” includes the Government;

The definition is inclusive and does not state that ‘person’ only refers to a natural person.

Section 102 of the Patents Act also contemplates offences under the Patents Act. The section states that both a body corporate and an officer of that body may be guilty of an offence under the Act.

Of course, Section 102 cannot and does not conclusively determine the construction of Section 34. However, it provides further support against a construction of “person” as only referring to a natural person.

The IPOS Patents Formalities Manual at paragraph 11.4.10 provides further guidance:

“A person resident in Singapore could be an applicant or an inventor named in the patent application first filed outside Singapore. This could include a natural person, the Government, as well as any company or association or body of persons corporate or unincorporated.” (emphasis added)

The Formalities Manual therefore expressly states that a “person resident in Singapore” may include a company. It is difficult to reconcile this with the AskGov statement that “person” refers to an individual and excludes a company or legal entity.

In our view, the better interpretation is that a company can indeed be a “person” for the purposes of Section 34. Corporate status alone therefore does not take an applicant outside the provision. There remain separate questions as to whether the particular company is resident in Singapore and whether it has filed or caused the overseas application to be filed.

Nevertheless, for the proposed UK filing, we advised against relying on the AskGov answer and recommended obtaining written authority (a “foreign filing licence”) before filing in the UK.

IPOS has Agreed to Correct the AskGov Page

We wrote to IPOS on 5 August 2026 drawing attention to the apparent conflict between the AskGov answer, the Patents Act and paragraph 11.4.10 of the Formalities Manual. IPOS replied on 7 August 2026:

“We have reviewed the AskGov page in question and we apologise for any confusion this may have caused.”

IPOS added:

“We will arrange for the affected page to be corrected.”

IPOS’s response does not provide a legal analysis of the meaning of “person”, nor does it address the test for corporate residence. It does, however, confirm that IPOS has reviewed the page and intends to correct it. The decision to correct the page appears to indicate that IPOS does not consider the statement excluding companies to be correct.

At the time of writing, though, the wording shown above remains on the AskGov page.

A Wider Point About AskGov Guidance

AskGov may be useful for straightforward procedural questions. However, we consider that greater care is required where an enquiry depends on statutory interpretation, particularly where the answer may determine whether a criminal offence has been committed.

Even the Patents Formalities Manual states that it is based on IPOS’s interpretation of the applicable law and practice and that its contents do not constitute legal advice. It advises readers to approach a legal professional if legal advice is required.

Where an AskGov question requires interpretation of the Patents Act, rather than (say) an explanation of IPOS procedure, we consider that referring the enquirer to a suitably qualified patent attorney may be preferable to giving a short answer which could be misunderstood as settling the legal position.

What Should be Considered Before a First Filing?

Where a patent application first disclosing an invention is intended to be filed outside Singapore, the Section 34 position should be considered carefully, and by reference to all persons involved in the proposed filing. This may include a consideration of who the applicant should be and where that applicant is resident, whether any inventor is resident in Singapore and whether there are any other persons resident in Singapore who may file or cause the application to be filed outside Singapore.

As explained above, the enquiry should not be confined to natural persons. A company or other corporate entity may also be a “person” for the purposes of Section 34. Accordingly, corporate applicants and other corporate entities involved in filing or causing the application to be filed should also be considered, including where they are resident and what role they have in the proposed filing.

Given the criminal consequences of a contravention of the Section 34 provisions, we consider it prudent for those questions to be addressed before the foreign filing is made. Where the position is uncertain, appropriate professional advice should be obtained and written authority from IPOS sought where necessary.

Chong-Yee Khoo recognised as a Patent Star in IP STARS 2026

Fri, 31 Jul 2026 19:14:00 +0800

We are pleased to announce that Cantab IP’s principal, Dr Chong-Yee Khoo, has been recognised as a Patent Star for Singapore in the 2026 edition of Managing IP’s IP STARS.

This is the second consecutive year in which Chong-Yee has received the Patent Star designation.

IP STARS is an international guide to intellectual property firms and practitioners. Its rankings are based on independent research, including information submitted by firms, publicly available information and feedback from clients and other practitioners. According to IP STARS, its practitioner rankings as highly selective and it does not rank every practitioner who takes part in its research.

A Patent Star is an experienced senior IP practitioner who has been recommended by peers or clients, or who is considered integral to the success of their firm. We are therefore particularly pleased that Chong-Yee’s work has received this recognition.

Recognition for Cantab IP

Cantab IP has also been listed among the Other Notable Firms for patent prosecution in Singapore in the 2026 rankings.

As a small independent Singapore patent and trade mark attorney firm, we do not have the size, marketing resources or international office network of many larger firms in the rankings. Our practice instead depends on the quality of our work, close involvement by a senior attorney and long-term relationships with clients.

This recognition reflects the confidence placed in us by the clients and professional colleagues with whom we work. We are grateful to everyone who provided feedback to the IP STARS research team and to those who continue to entrust us with their IP work.

We will continue to provide careful, commercially practical patent advice, with our particular focus in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, life sciences and other technically complex fields.

Cantab IP Recognised Again in IAM Patent 1000

Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:32:51 +0800

Cantab IP has been ranked Bronze for Singapore patent prosecution in the 2026 edition of the IAM Patent 1000, while Dr Chong-Yee Khoo has been ranked Silver in the individuals: prosecution category.

This continues last year’s recognition for both the firm and Dr Khoo.

IAM’s commentary reads:

A boutique with heavyweight credentials, Cantab IP “consistently provides timely and effective advice for securing meaningful patent coverage thanks to its very commercially-minded approach”. Spearheaded by Chong-Yee Khoo, the outfit punches well above its weight, drawing on vast legal know-how and an impressive command of complex technologies to deliver precise and cost-effective protection.

IAM also refers to Dr Khoo’s combination of PhD-level scientific training and extensive legal experience, and his work on inventive step, added matter and claim strategy in technically demanding cases.

We are very pleased by the continued recognition by IAM. It is particularly significant for a small specialist firm like ours. There are many IP firms operating in the Singapore patent prosecution market, including much larger firms with more resources at their disposal. We would like to think that Cantab IP’s inclusion in the IAM Patent 1000 reflects our ability to blend local knowledge with a wider international outlook and experience, helping clients and foreign associates navigate the Singapore patent system.

The IAM Patent 1000 is published annually and identifies patent professionals and firms in key jurisdictions around the world. According to IAM, the guide is compiled following an extensive research process involving interviews with attorneys, patent attorneys and in-house counsel.

We are grateful to our clients, foreign associates and colleagues who provided feedback to IAM’s researchers, and offer our congratulations to everyone else who made the list.

IPOS Announces Changes to PPH Procedures for Singapore Patent Applications

Fri, 12 Jun 2026 19:31:21 +0800

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has issued Patents Registry Circular No. 2/2026, announcing a couple of new measures which it hopes will encourage use of the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) by Singapore patent applicants.

What is the Patent Prosecution Highway?

The Patent Prosecution Highway is an international worksharing programme which allows applicants to request accelerated examination in Singapore by relying on positive examination results from a participating overseas intellectual property office. Singapore has a global network of more than 30 PPH partners, including the IP offices of China, Japan, Korea, the United States and the European Patent Office.

What New Measures has IPOS Announced?

First, IPOS will endeavour to issue the first office action within 6 months from the date of the PPH request. This applies to PPH requests filed on or after 1 July 2026. It’s important to understand that IPOS has only stated that they will “endeavour” to issue a first office action within 6 months, so this a target and not a promise.

Second, for a limited period, the official fee for search and examination requests will be reduced by 30%, where a PPH request is filed together with the search or examination request. This applies only to requests filed between 3 August 2026 and 31 December 2027.

Currently, applicants already benefit from a 30% official fee discount, but this has to be requested as a refund after the fees have already been paid. The current arrangement applies to requests filed before 3 August 2026. The new arrangement will give the same benefit for newer requests, but with a simplified payment process.

Why Has IPOS Announced These Changes?

IPOS is clear that it wants to encourage more use of PPH by applicants. The new upfront fee reduction and the 6-month first office action target will undoubtedly make the PPH route more attractive for some applicants.

The announcement should also be seen against the current background of patent examination in Singapore. In recent years, many applicants and practitioners have experienced significantly longer waiting times for first office actions in regular examination. Encouraging greater use of PPH is therefore consistent with an attempt to move suitable cases through examination more efficiently.

How Else Can Applications Be Accelerated?

In the circular, IPOS reminds of other patent acceleration options available, including the ASEAN Patent Examination Co-operation (ASPEC), Collaborative Search and Examination programmes with Viet Nam and Indonesia and re-registration programmes with Cambodia and Laos.

At the time of IPOS’ June 2026 announcement, acceptance of new SG Patents Fast requests was suspended, as we reported in our January article. IPOS subsequently resumed accepting new requests from 1 September 2026.

Cantab IP’s View

The changes are generally welcome for applications for which PPH is suitable and low risk. In those cases, the revised process should make the PPH route more straightforward and attractive.

However, there are a number of specific situations for which PPH will be entirely unsuitable and where the Singapore claims should not simply follow the claims allowed overseas. In such cases, regular examination may give the applicant more flexibility and result in a stronger and more defensible patent.

As is often the case, the outcome preferred by the IP office for administrative efficiency will not always be the same as the outcome that best serves applicants.

Cantab IP can advise on whether PPH is suitable for a particular Singapore patent application. Please get in touch if you have any questions.

Speaking on Automation for IP Firms at the FICPI Open Forum 2026

Thu, 28 May 2026 10:30:40 +0800

I will be attending the FICPI 23rd Open Forum in Budapest from 16 to 18 September 2026.

The FICPI Open Forum brings together independent IP attorneys from around the world to discuss developments in intellectual property law and practice, with a particular focus on practical issues affecting IP firms and attorney practice.

I will also be speaking in the IP Practice Management Stream on 18 September 2026, in a session entitled “Automate or stagnate: how to transform your legal practice step by step”.

My talk will focus on practical automation in a small IP practice. In particular, I will discuss how automation can help reduce repeated manual work, improve consistency, shorten turnaround times and reduce operational risk. I will also touch on how automation can be introduced gradually, using scripts, templates, database-driven workflows and better use of existing systems, rather than by trying to redesign an entire practice at once.

This is a subject that has shaped the way we work at Cantab IP from the beginning. For a small firm, automation is not simply a question of convenience. It is an important part of maintaining quality, responsiveness and control without building unnecessary administrative layers.

I look forward to meeting clients, associates and colleagues in Budapest, and to exchanging views on how IP practices can adapt sensibly to new technology while preserving professional judgement and service quality.

Please get in touch if you would like to arrange a meeting during the FICPI Open Forum.

AI Patents in Singapore: IPOS Consultation on Emotional Perception

Wed, 27 May 2026 22:02:23 +0800

IPOS has issued a public consultation on the relevance of the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Emotional Perception AI Limited v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2026] UKSC 3 to Singapore patent practice.

The consultation is significant for AI patents in Singapore because it may affect how IPOS examines computer-implemented inventions, artificial neural networks and claims involving software, data processing and mathematical methods.

The Emotional Perception case is significant because it concerns artificial neural networks, computer-implemented inventions and the boundary between patentable technology and abstract subject matter. It is also noteworthy as the UK Supreme Court rejected the long-standing UK Aerotel approach to excluded subject matter.

UK Supreme Court decisions are however not binding on the Singapore Courts. Such judgements may be persuasive, but only to the extent that the reasoning fits Singapore law. Furthermore, Singapore no longer has a statutory list of exclusions corresponding to Section 1(2) of the UK Patents Act 1977 or Article 52(2) EPC, which were discussed at length in the case.

However, we consider that Emotional Perception raises issues that are directly relevant to how AI and computer-implemented inventions are examined in Singapore.

Key Points

IPOS is considering whether Emotional Perception is relevant to Singapore patent practice.

The UK Supreme Court rejected the Aerotel “actual contribution” approach, but the decision is not binding in Singapore.

Singapore no longer has the UK/EPC-style statutory list of excluded subject matter (FAQ: Singapore patentable subject matter and exclusions), although IPOS examination practice still uses an Aerotel-derived analysis.

Cantab IP’s position is that IPOS should review that approach for AI and computer-implemented inventions.

Current Singapore Approach to Computer-Implemented Inventions

Section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1994 states that a patentable invention must be new, involve an inventive step and be capable of industrial application.

Unlike the UK Patents Act and the EPC, however, the current Singapore Patents Act does not contain a statutory list of excluded subject matter such as mathematical methods, business methods, presentations of information or programs for computers “as such”. These were previously set out in Section 13(2) of the Singapore Patents Act, but the Act was partially repealed on 1 January 1996 to remove that provision.

In practice, however, IPOS continues to refuse patent protection for such subject matter. Chapter 8 of the Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications at IPOS explains how this is currently handled in examination practice:

Paragraph 8.3 says that, if there remains an issue that the claims may relate to subject matter which is not an “invention”, the Examiner should undertake a separate analysis of the claimed subject matter. In that analysis, the Examiner should look at substance rather than form, identify the “actual contribution” made by the claimed subject matter and consider the problem to be solved, how the claimed subject matter works and what its advantages are.
Paragraph 8.4 then identifies this “actual contribution” inquiry as the second step of the Aerotel/Macrossan test. It quotes the well-known formulation asking what the inventor has “really added to human knowledge”.
Paragraph 8.5 says that an objection should be raised if the actual contribution lies solely in subject matter that is not an “invention”.

For AI-related inventions, IPOS has published the Supplemental Guidance for the Examination of AI-related Patent Applications. That guidance supplements the main Examination Guidelines and gives hypothetical examples of AI-related claims. IPOS states that AI-related applications are examined case by case, and that the claims must still satisfy the other requirements for patentability.

The Supplemental Guidance recognises that AI applications are found in many fields of technology. It gives examples ranging from collision avoidance, fraud detection and traffic prediction to drug discovery. It also recognises that patent protection may be sought for many aspects of AI-related inventions, including training datasets, machine learning methods and AI-specific hardware such as processors and memory chips.

The Supplemental Guidance however also advises an “actual contribution” approach (Section B(i), paragraphs 4 to 10).

Thus, even though Singapore no longer sets out excluded subject matter by statute, unlike Section 1(2) UKPA or Article 52(2) EPC, the IPOS Examination Guidelines and Supplemental Guidance still use an Aerotel-derived contribution analysis when deciding whether a claim defines an invention. The significance of Emotional Perception is that the UK Supreme Court has now rejected that very approach in the jurisdiction from which it came.

The question is therefore whether Singapore examination practice should continue to rely on an Aerotel-derived contribution analysis, particularly for AI and computer-implemented inventions?

What was Emotional Perception About?

The patent application in Emotional Perception concerned a system using an artificial neural network, or ANN, to recommend media files. The invention sought to identify files that were similar in a way that reflected human perception. The UK Supreme Court described the invention as using an ANN to replicate similarities and differences that a person might subjectively perceive between different files, by reference to objectively measurable physical properties of those files.

In simple terms, the invention was about better recommendations. However, the case was not just about recommendation systems. It also raised wider questions about whether an ANN is a program for a computer, whether the claim was excluded from patentability under UK law and how the UK should assess computer-implemented inventions.

The UK Supreme Court held that an ANN is a program for a computer. It reasoned that, whatever the form of the machine on which the ANN is implemented, the ANN constitutes, in essence, a set of instructions to manipulate data in a particular way to produce a desired result.

The Court also clearly rejected the Aerotel approach. It held that the UK should adopt the EPO’s “any hardware” approach to Article 52 EPC. Under that approach, the presence of hardware is enough to pass the initial threshold. The analysis then moves on to identifying which features contribute to the technical character of the invention and when assessing inventive step.

The Intermediate Step

The UK Supreme Court accepted that the “any hardware” threshold is low. Where a claim involves a computer or other technical hardware, that may be enough to pass the initial threshold. But that cannot be the end of the analysis. Otherwise, an abstract idea could be made patentable merely by reciting conventional computer implementation.

The Court therefore emphasised the application of an intermediate step. Before assessing novelty and inventive step, the examiner or Court must identify which features of the claim contribute to the technical character of the invention as a whole.

This should not simply be an exercise of labelling each feature as technical or non-technical in isolation. The reason is that a feature that looks non-technical on its own may contribute to the technical character of the invention if it interacts with technical features. Conversely, a hardware feature should not count merely because it is hardware, if it does not contribute to the technical character of the invention.

We consider that such an approach is useful for Singapore practice. Thus, the question should not be whether an invention can be reduced to a computer program, a mathematical method or a recommendation scheme when described at a high level. A better question might be to ask what the invention achieves in the real world, how it achieves that result using technical means and which features contribute to the technical character of the invention as a whole.

What is IPOS Asking in its Consultation?

IPOS has launched a feedback exercise asking for views on the relevance of Emotional Perception to Singapore patent practice. The consultation asks whether the decision is relevant to the development of Singapore patent practice, whether it brings greater clarity on patentable subject matter and its relationship with inventive step and what practical issues or challenges may arise for applicants and practitioners.

IPOS appears to be asking these questions because its current AI guidance uses an Aerotel-derived “actual contribution” approach. The UK Supreme Court has now rejected Aerotel for UK law. While that does not automatically change Singapore law, it does raise a fair question: should Singapore continue to use a contribution-based approach that was developed for a statutory exclusion framework that Singapore does not have?

In our view, IPOS is right to ask the question. AI inventions often involve a mixture of hardware, software, data, mathematical processing and real-world effects. A threshold test that asks too early what the inventor has “contributed” may strip away the technical implementation and treat the claim as nothing more than an abstract idea, mathematical method or computer program. That creates a risk of rejecting claims that may otherwise protect genuine technical innovation.

Cantab IP’s Response to the Consultation

Cantab IP has sent in its response to the consultation.

Our position is that Emotional Perception is relevant to Singapore, but only as persuasive authority. As the UK Supreme Court has no direct jurisdiction in Singapore, IPOS should therefore not adopt the decision mechanically. The reasoning must be considered in light of Singapore’s own Patents Act and Rules.

We have also emphasised that Singapore does not have the UK/EPC statutory list of excluded subject matter. Much of the UK judgment concerns the interpretation of Article 52 EPC and the UK statutory exclusions. As Singapore does not have the same statutory framework, Emotional Perception should not be treated as if it simply imports UK or EPO law into Singapore.

That said, we consider that the decision exposes a genuine problem with the Aerotel-derived “actual contribution” inquiry. Asking what the inventor has contributed before deciding whether the claim defines an invention risks mixing separate requirements of patentability. It may in an extreme case import considerations of novelty and inventive step into the threshold inquiry.

We have suggested that IPOS should review the current Supplemental Guidance for the Examination of AI-related Patent Applications. In particular, IPOS should reconsider whether the “actual contribution” step remains appropriate for Singapore practice.

A Better Singapore Framework

Our proposed approach is straightforward.

First, construe the claim.

Second, ask whether the claim is directed to a technical invention, having regard to the claim as a whole and the presence of technical means.

Third, identify the technical character of the invention as a whole.

Fourth, determine which claim features contribute to that technical character, including through interaction with other features.

Fifth, assess novelty and inventive step by reference to the features that make such a contribution.

This keeps the requirements of patentability separate. It also avoids importing a UK/EPC statutory exclusion framework into Singapore law. At the same time, it preserves a proper filter against claims where the hardware is incidental and the actual subject matter is non-technical.

Artificial Neural Networks

Our response also addresses the treatment of artificial neural networks.

The UK Supreme Court held that an ANN is a program for a computer. However, we do not think IPOS should adopt that reasoning uncritically for Singapore practice.

A conventional computer program is ordinarily understood as a sequence of executable instructions. A trained ANN, however, is technically different. Its behaviour may depend on network architecture, weights, biases, learned parameters, component values or physical configuration. Those features may determine how the system behaves, but they are not necessarily executable instructions in the ordinary sense of the term.

This issue is most clearly seen in analogue implementations. An analogue ANN or analogue computing circuit may have no CPU executing code. Its behaviour may arise from circuit topology, component values and physical signal flow. In that context, asking where the “program” resides is not simply a semantic question. It exposes a genuine technical problem with treating all information-processing systems as if they were conventional computers executing conventional programs.

Our view is that treating circuit configuration, component values, weights or biases as a “program” risks replacing technical analysis with an abstract legal classification. We consider that the better approach for Singapore practice is to examine the technical means used and the technical effect achieved, rather than to decide patentability by applying a broad legal label such as “computer program”.

The same caution applies to mathematical methods. ANNs plainly use mathematics, particularly during training and in the adjustment of weights and biases. But applied mathematics should not be treated as non-patentable merely because mathematical operations are involved. We consider that the proper inquiry is whether the mathematics is claimed in the abstract, or whether it forms part of a technical system which achieves a technical effect.

Practical Points for Applicants

AI patent applications should not rely on broad statements that the invention uses AI or improves recommendations. The specification should explain the technical problem, the technical means used to address that problem, the relevant feature interactions and the real-world technical effect achieved.

For ANN inventions, applicants should carefully explain the technical architecture, the role of training where relevant, the role of weights, biases, parameters or embeddings, the data being processed, the mechanism by which the output is produced and how those features interact to produce the claimed technical effect. In any event, it is good practice to draft patent specifications with sufficient technical detail and fallback positions.

That will be important whatever approach IPOS ultimately adopts. The stronger the technical explanation in the specification, the easier it will be to show that the claim is directed to a technical invention and that the relevant features contribute to the technical character of the invention.

Conclusion

While Emotional Perception does not change Singapore law, it is still a hugely significant case.

In particular, it gives IPOS a useful opportunity to reconsider whether the current Aerotel-derived “actual contribution” framework remains appropriate for Singapore, particularly for AI and computer-implemented inventions. In our view, Singapore should move toward a framework that asks whether the claim, considered as a whole, is directed to a technical invention, then identifies which features contribute to the technical character of that invention before novelty and inventive step are assessed.

That approach would better reflect Singapore’s statutory framework. It would also reduce the risk of artificial distinctions between software, digital hardware and analogue implementations, while preserving proper scrutiny of AI inventions under novelty and inventive step.

Further Discussion

This consultation is likely to shape how AI and computer-implemented inventions are examined in Singapore. The issues are not limited to artificial neural networks. They may also affect inventions involving machine learning, data processing, simulation, optimisation, recommendation systems, digital signal processing and software-implemented control systems.

Please feel free to get in touch if you would like to discuss any of these issues in more detail, or if you would like to review how the current IPOS approach may affect a particular AI or computer-implemented invention.

Contact Cantab IP

BIO International Convention 2026: Meeting Biotechnology and Life Sciences Contacts in San Diego

Sat, 23 May 2026 19:47:23 +0800

I will be attending BIO International Convention 2026 in San Diego from 22 to 25 June 2026.

BIO is one of the main international meetings for the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and life sciences sectors. It brings together companies, research institutions, investors, professional advisers and service providers from around the world.

I will be in San Diego to meet clients, overseas associates and other contacts working in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and the wider life sciences sector. I would also be pleased to meet companies, research organisations and professional firms that would like to discuss patent protection, international filing strategy or intellectual property support in Singapore and South East Asia.

If you will also be attending BIO International Convention 2026 and would like to arrange a meeting in San Diego, please get in touch.