Tell our story

to convince the IPOPHL that the invention is worthy of being granted

Non-submission of claimed US patent grant

Second, Mr. Kritz writes that “[t]he

was suitably impressed by this to grant the invention a patent in May 2016,

priority designation under international treaties to facilitate the application for a patent in another country.”

Based on our documents, only a

with the USPTO and no record of a patent grant was submitted to IPOPHL. A provisional application, permitted in some jurisdictions like the US, generally allows inventors to claim rights to priority while buying more time to complete

for an actual grant.

As for the Intellectual Property (lP) Code, Section 31 enumerates the documentary requirements applicants need to satisfy before their claim to the right of priority can be granted. The applicant concerned in Mr. Kritz’s article was informed to comply with these requirements but failed to do so. Moreover, the corresponding fee to claim the right of priority was not paid by the applicant. Hence, the examiner was constrained to withdraw the application.

IPOPHL action, based on provisions of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, implementing rules and examination manual

Third, we’d like to dispute the claim that the denial was not based on substantive grounds but “on grounds so patently wrong that one would have to conclude they exceeded mere incompetence and were deliberate attempt to deny inventor rights to her own intellectual property.”

Since a patent denies the invention from the public domain and vests a bundle of exclusive rights are losing in the global stage even when there are gains due to the Duterte government. We have been framed, from our war against illegal drugs to having the worst

to unabated greed and corruption and a politics that’s is too extractive for our own good. There is also the burning issue of the West Phil

for obvious propaganda and what others are saying that we are siding too much with China when in fact ours is an independent foreign policy. We are defeated by default because we choose to let go and not engage.

- ing these days, with the President appearing tired and gaunt after

- eralism is no longer a centerpiece, and some of his infrastructure projects are delayed. Still, these temporary delays are nothing compared to the policies, programs and activities his administration has done. But communicating the gains has been quite problematic because there seems to be a paralysis in the agency tasked to do so. Imagine the expansive networks we have but are not mobilized correctly: There are 10 million

to a holder for 20 years from the date of filing, the IPOPHL carefully examines each application to guard public interest. The IPOPHL carefully strikes a balance between administering the patent system to incentivize inventors and ensuring that public interest is safeguarded by not issuing trivial or frivolous patents. This is exactly why patent grant is never a “rubber-stamp affair.”

Further, all IPOPHL patent examiners are highly capable and capacitated to examine submitted applications. Prior to fully engaging in the examination of actual patent applications for them to be decided on, patent examiners receive two years of highly technical and structured competency-based training program here and abroad. Capacity-building in relation to the

- ally provided by the IPOPHL in order for the examiners to keep abreast with

No missing documents; non-compliance with disclosure due to absence of properly worded claim

Fourth, Sec. 32 of the IP Code requires that patent applications, among others, must contain at least one claim, description of the invention and abstract. The description of the invention, particularly, is at the core of the patent system.

The Supreme Court in the case

(decided in January 1980) stressed the importance of the completeness of an application, ruling that “it is imperative that the application be complete in order that it may be accepted.” It added: “It is essential to the valid

accurate description of the process is to apprise the public of what the patentee claims as his invention, to inform the Courts as to what they are called upon to construe, and to convey to competing manufacturers and dealers information of exactly what they

recipient country act in such a way that the donor country deems to be against its policies and standards.

There was a howl of protest both from Duterte allies in government and among DDS about the US move

the case of Senator de Lima. Many accuse the US of meddling, as if it is not a norm that we willingly exposed ourselves to when we accepted US development aid. What is ironic is that this noise comes from people who did not have a problem with China’s incursion not only in our exclusive economic zone but even in our territories. Many people are already livid that the US would consider denying

as an affront to our sovereignty, yet they cheered when Hong Kong actually denied entry to former ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales and former Foreign Affairs secretary Albert del Rosario.

And now, some senators are supporting retaliatory moves against the US. Sen. Christopher Lawrence Filipinos outside the country;

- cers in every local government of

agencies; and the government has the last mile covered with Radyo ng Bayan, a TV station, the Philippine News Agency, Philippine Broadcast Service and the Philippine Information Agency. Why is the government line muted? That it takes a ragtag team of online warriors doing the defense and offense?

Very recently, a “United Na

information’ spread by critics after the country earned praises for its accomplishments in socioeconomic development and other human rights fronts.” UN Special Rapporteur on the right to development Saad Alfarargi of Egypt has reportedly said the Philippines could share its “best practices” and participate in international forums to project its “right image.” The UN rights expert made the statement on the sidelines of the 42nd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva, Switzerland.

Alfarargi lauded the socioeconomic achievements in the Philippines that uplift the dignity of

are bound to avoid.”

In the case raised by Mr. Kritz, the application, including all attachments

comply with the disclosure standards of Sec. 32 of the IP Code since there was no single properly worded claim. To sum up, the IPOPHL’s ruling on incompleteness is pursuant to law and the decision of the Supreme Court. IPOPHL’s decision also covers the content of disclosure not on the required documents per se.

IPOPHL has no involvement in the withdrawal of the applicant’s lawyer from handling the case

Fifth, the withdrawal of the patent agent is a matter between the applicant and the patent agent.

IPOPHL is not privy to that contractual relationship between the parties.

The Philippines adheres to universally accepted principles of intellectual property and patent system.

of its continued commitment to assist inventors, especially local inventors, through programs such as those that offer 50-percent discounts for under

fees for eligible trademark applicants; waiver of international search fees for patent applicants eyeing to enter international markets through the Patent Cooperation Treaty route; capacity building on patent search and drafting to our network of around 94 universities and research development institutions, among others. We will continue to support our inventors. Moreover, we will continue to issue grants for patents pursuant to the provisions of the IP Code, which our earlier lawmakers had viewed as suf

- ters in the minds of the public. Rest assured that the IPOPHL is always committed to driving innovation and granting quality patents which will improve the economy of the Go suggests that we refuse entry to the US senators who had a hand in the decision to ban some of our

to be outdone, Sen. Vicente Sotto 3rd even raised the idea that those involved in the impeachment of US President Donald Trump should also be barred from entering the Philippines.

Some people need a heavy dose of reality check, if not of rationality and sanity. Have Go and Sotto ever thought that a threat only works if

the same way some Filipinos are so affected by the proposed US ban? Ignoring the US would have been a more pragmatic reaction, more so when the President has projected that we have pivoted away from it anyway. Many DDS, both inside and outside government, have turned into US haters, even as they now consider China as the new apple of their eye. It is therefore odd why they would even bother retaliating if the US doesn’t matter to them anymore. Filipinos, even as he emphasized that “development is a ‘pivot’ in human rights promotion, protec

Undersecretary Severo Catura of the Presidential Human Rights Committee Secretariat said in a statement: “He (Alfarargi) encouraged the Philippines to work hard in refuting the false news being perpetuated by rabid critiques as ‘your country has many best practices to share.’ As these fake news are being spread by enemies of the Philippine government, Alfarargi encouraged the Philippines to

- mation, and to continue actively participating in international and regional human rights discussions ‘ to have the right image that it wants to project.”

So, how do we tie the knot for the Duterte administration? How do we ensure that the legacy is properly documented and made? How can we effectively tell our story and not the narratives being peddled by some out to obliterate the gains achieved by the Duterte administration? How can we win back the image of the nation that has seen better days in the present leadership? In the last few years of the Duterte administration, effort should be made in tying up loose ends and getting gains out in the public view and in the international arena. There are things we can be proud of and there are things that can be made better. We should be able to separate the chaff from the grain and be proud of our achievements and learn from the challenges.

Ours is not a democratic utopia; ours is an evolving democracy de

others for the collective authorship is not theirs to make. We cannot be framed by misinformation because by doing so, they change our shared vision. It is our shared responsibility to stand against the lies and the half-truths as it is also our responsibility to acknowledge the missed opportunities, moving forward. We are Filipinos, the Philippines is our country; let no one tell us who we are and let no one claim they are better than us. The legacy of Duterte is also the legacy of the Filipino people. We sink and swim with him. His success is ours and his failure is shared by all. The remaining months of the Duterte administration are critical to all Filipinos, friend and foe alike. We must stay the course.