Singapore: New fee structure aims to foster innovation
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Singapore: New fee structure aims to foster innovation

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) announced a fee revision for patents and trade marks with effect from April 1 2017. Regarding patents, the application fees for searches or supplementary search reports, local search and examination reports, and international search and examination reports, are reduced by 14%, 25% and 37%, respectively. There is also a 30% fee reduction in the application to register trade marks that utilise the IPOS pre-approved list of goods and services. Thus, businesses and entrepreneurs will see a substantial fee reduction for patent and trade mark applications.

In addition, a new excess claim fee structure is introduced that is payable when requesting combined search and examination (S&E), examination (E) and grant. Previously, excess claim fees were only payable at time of grant. With the revised fees, $40 is charged per claim in excess of 20 claims when requesting S&E or E and is payable together with a grant fee for claims in excess of the number of claims previously paid (i.e. only the excess unpaid claims will be charged on grant). The changes to the claim fee structure will streamline the patent application process at IPOS and encourage applicants to file claims sets that are concise with the aim of saving costs and time required for the patent application process.

The fee revision also includes an increase in patent renewal fees from the eighth year onwards and an increase in trade mark renewal fees. While this renewal fee revision increases the overall lifecycle costs for patents and trade marks in Singapore, Singapore continues to remain competitive with lower overall lifecycle costs as compared to other countries such as Korea, Japan, China, the USA and Australia.

According to IPOS, the increase in renewal fees will discourage IP hoarding by encouraging IP owners to utilise their valuable IP while releasing non-performing IP to the public domain. To further facilitate this initiative, the fees for surrendering or cancelling IP are removed. Additionally, applicants who license their patents will enjoy a 50% discount off their renewal fees. Thus businesses are encouraged to manage their IP portfolio strategically.

Collopy_Dan

Shahera Anwar

Daniel Collopy


Spruson & Ferguson (Asia) Pte Ltd152 Beach Road#37-05/06 Gateway EastSingapore 189721Tel: +65 6333 7200Fax: +65 6333 7222mail.asia@spruson.comwww.spruson.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Rob Stien, chief communications and public policy officer at InterDigital, says the EU has forgotten innovators while trying to solve an issue that doesn’t exist
As Australia’s Qantm IP leans towards being acquired by a private equity company, sources discuss what it could mean for IP firms
Law firms that are conscious of their role in society are more likely to win work, according to a survey of over 23,000 in-house professionals
Nghiem Xuan Bac Pham, managing partner of Vision & Associates, discusses opportunities created by the US-China rift as well as profitability issues facing IP practices
Douglas Leite and two of his colleagues were intrigued by Bhering Advogados’s mission to grow its patent litigation practice
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Counsel explain how pricing flexibility, patent agents and being business partners can help them maintain profitable patent prosecution practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Speakers at an INTA event weighed in on why firms should create AI use policies and how they stay on top of the latest developments
The England and Wales Court of Appeal backed Lidl in its trademark dispute with Tesco, but we should pay more attention to how we rule on first-instance decisions
Gift this article