Good news: speedypats die as Government listens

Speediest isn't
always best

Back in April, this Kat expressed his concern (note for readers, 'concern' is a typically British understatement for 'anxiety bordering on panic') that the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) was in danger of introducing what he termed 'speedypats' -- patents granted in just 90 days from start to finish.  A month later, Patexia's Daniel Porter argued that speedypats might work, if correctly handled, but the Kat remained unconvinced.  Tonight, following alerts from a number readers and a tweet from katfriend Barbara Cookson, the Kat finds himself beaming beatifically at the happy news that, having announced its folly in haste, the IPO has renounced it at leisure, here. According to a reasoned and generally reasonable document from the IPO, Government Response: Accelerated patent processing at the Intellectual Property Office: Introduction of a superfast service (14 pages, much of which is blank):

"34. There would not appear to be a great desire from users of the patent system for the proposed superfast patent process to be introduced. While some respondents to the consultation would welcome the introduction of an additional optional service, only a minority indicated that they would expect to use it, and several indicated that the acceleration services already available [especially for green patents: see here] are adequate.

35. Respondents to the consultation highlighted several significant drawbacks to granting a patent in such a short timescale, as outlined in paragraphs 24-30 above. It is envisaged that measures could be introduced to overcome or mitigate against most of these issues, at least to an extent. In particular:

• Superfast applications could be highlighted at an early stage to alert third parties to the shortened period in which to make observations, and a notification service could be implemented (though the burden on third parties to make prompt observations would remain).

• The IPO could reserve the right to refuse superfast requests to manage demand and ensure that there is no impact on standard applications.

• Applicants could be clearly warned of the potential disadvantages of early publication prior to making a superfast request.

36. However, it is not possible to mitigate against the risk of grant of invalid patents, which would then need to be amended or revoked. This is an unavoidable consequence of granting a patent in such a short timescale when the patent system worldwide is based on a standard publication period of 18 months. This issue was arguably of most concern to consultation respondents [and some Kats, notes Merpel], due to the uncertainty it could cause for both patent holders and third parties.

37. In light of these concerns, the evidence that the service would be unlikely to be useful, and the way in which existing acceleration services meet users’ needs, the Government has decided not to implement the proposed superfast service or make any changes to existing acceleration services".

This Kat is thrilled to find a real live example of the Government listening to expert opinion [and to this blog ...] and accepting that superfast patents were a hare-brained scheme. Since this is August, he doubts that there will be many members of the the European Commission's crack Patent Policy Enforcement Unit around to take note of this undoubtedly unfamiliar notion.

"Slow down, you move too fast" here
Slow and steady here