The Philippines: Proposed amendments to inter partes proceedings

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

The Philippines: Proposed amendments to inter partes proceedings

On April 5 2016, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) posted its proposed amendments to the implementing rules and regulations on inter partes proceedings inviting comments from the public. The proposed amendments are intended to simplify and speed up the resolution of cases before the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA), the adjudicating bureau of the IPOPHL.

Under Rule 2, inter partes cases refer to: (1) oppositions to applications for trade mark and service mark registrations, (2) petitions to cancel trade mark and service mark registrations, patents, utility models and design registrations, and (3) petitions for compulsory licensing.

The following are the major proposed amendments:

  • The hearing/adjudication officers are given the authority to issue and sign decisions and final orders, and to issue orders of defaults, and entry of judgment.

  • The assistant director of the BLA is given the authority to assign cases to the different hearing/adjudication officers; referring cases to mediation; issuing final orders of dismissals in cases where the opposer or petitioner fails to cure defects in filing; and to issue entry of judgment.

  • Allowing the submission of authenticated documents, particularly documents executed outside the Philippines that need consularisation, after the filing of the case but before the order of default or conduct of the preliminary conference, provided that said documents are executed prior to the filing of the opposition. At present, the authentication by the relevant Philippine consulate office of documents executed outside the Philippines must have been done before the filing of the verified notice of opposition or cancellation, which rule has caused a number of cases to be dismissed on this technicality.

  • The Hearing/Adjudication Officers are given 60 days from the date the cases are submitted for resolution, their decisions or final orders.

  • The procedure for the filing of a motion for reconsideration from a decision or final order is expressly provided, giving the party 15 days to file the motion for reconsideration, and for the adverse party to file its comment from receipt of the order to file the same, and the decision of the director is appealable to the director general of the IPOPHL within 30 days from receipt of the decision on the motion for reconsideration. Under the current rules, the aggrieved party has the option to either file a motion for reconsideration or file an appeal directly to the director general of the IPOPHL within 30 days from receipt of the decision or final order.

Hechanova_Editha-100

Editha R Hechanova


Hechanova & Co., Inc.Salustiana D. Ty Tower104 Paseo de Roxas AvenueMakati City 1229, PhilippinesTel: (63) 2 812-6561Fax: (63) 2 888-4290editharh@hechanova.com.ph

www.hechanova.com.ph

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article