ADVERTISEMENT
Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> IPKat
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: IPKatBoo hoo to you, no new MOU
By Johanna Gibson, David Pearce, Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon.
ADVERTISEMENTS
The IPKat has discovered, via a circular from Ravindran Associates (Singapore), that the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between IP Australia and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) will cease to be operative as of 6 December. Under the MOU, IP Australia acted as a patent examining authority for Singapore's national examination under Singapore law. Thenceforth Singapore search and/or examination services will now only be provided by the Austrian, Danish and Hungarian Patent Offices [is it mere coincidence that these three jurisdictions are known for their pastries, ponders Merpel?].IP Australia's website provides a little more information -- but not much:
"... The MOU is a commercial arrangement that has been in place since 1995 and which is renegotiated periodically.The IPOS website has nothing further to add.
IP Australia has decided to discontinue with current MOU arrangements. ...
The decision not to renew the MOU will not impact on other patent services provided by IP Australia to Singapore or our strong engagement with IPOS. IP Australia will continue with its treaty obligations to act as an International Search and Preliminary Examination Authority for international application?s lodged by Singaporean applicants under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. IP Australia and IPOS will also continue to pursue discussions on regional cooperation for the effective processing of patents to benefit innovators in both countries".
Does anyone know what happened to end this idyllic arrangement? Was it just a matter of money, a lack of synergy, a lovers' tiff, perhaps? The IPKat dearly wants to know.
"Moo" and other animal noises here here
Full post as published by IPKat on October 18, 2010 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.









