In late 2000 the US proposed significant sweeping changes to the PCT in order to streamline the PCT processes. FICPI has agreed in principle with many of the suggestions for revision as these are PLT based in relation to formalities and other like filing steps that involve documentation. The US proposals include other suggestions of a more sweeping nature and these include:

1. Elimination of the concept of designations when filing an International application

FICPI agreed with this proposal but indicated that there is a need for the public to be made aware of the countries in which patent applications are being pursued as early as possible. Thus, FICPI suggested that there be some publication within about two months from the 30/31 month date for national phase entry as to the countries in which national phases have been processed.

2. Multiple searches and examinations

FICPI generally agreed with this proposal and suggested that the present search should be published in the same timeframe as presently occurring but the applicant could request additional or supplementary searching in countries of his choosing where there may be the likelihood of relevant prior art subject matter. This additional or supplementary searching should all be completed and published well before the 30 month due date for Chapter II processing.

3. Elimination of the 20 month deadline for national phase entry thereby making the Chapter II deadline the final date for national phase entry

FICPI agreed with this proposal, but commented there still should be provision for early national phase entry.

4. Elimination of the Concept of filing a Demand

It is proposed that all applications should be subject to International Preliminary Examination. FICPI presented the view that most applicants ignore the International Preliminary Examination report and that the sole purpose of filing a Demand is not to receive an International Examination Report, but rather to extend the due date for national phase entry. FICPI suggested that the applicant should have the option to choose to receive an examination report on payment of an appropriate fee. This would be of value where countries had been designated which rely on the International preliminary examination report for the patent processing in that country.

5. Further national phase entry deferral by paying appropriate fees for each six month period of deferral

FICPI was not in favour of this proposal as such would be adverse to third parties who need to know whether an application is proceeding in a particular country or not within a reasonable timeframe in order to maximise commercial development of competing technology. FICPI indicated that the present 30 month period is operating satisfactorily.

--------
See also paper EXCO/GB01/CET/1301 in connection with this subject.