Philippines: IPOPHL becomes an ISA and Philippines joins the Apostille Convention

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

Philippines: IPOPHL becomes an ISA and Philippines joins the Apostille Convention

On May 20 2019, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) started operating as an international searching authority (ISA) and international preliminary examining authority (IPEA). It now conducts search and preliminary examination of international applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) of the World Intellectual Property Organization. To encourage Filipino inventors, as well as higher educational institutions that are members of the Innovation and Technology Support Offices Network (ITSO), the IPOPHL has launched a programme waiving search and preliminary examination fees for the first 100 applicants which choose IPOPHL as the ISA or IPEA. Under this PCT Filing Assistance Program, foreign applicants from states included in WIPO's list of eligible nationals or residents may also avail of a 90% reduction of certain PCT fees. This programme is in effect until December 31 2019, or after 100 requests for ISRs have been filed, whichever comes first. The IPOPHL's Schedule of Fees as ISA can be found in the PCT Applicant's Guide – International Phase on the WIPO website. The Applicant's Guide also provides a few guidelines in relation to the IPOPHL's function as ISA, such as the conditions for refund and amount of refund of the search fee, whether the IPOPHL requires that nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listings be furnished in electronic form, and which subject matter will not be searched, among others.

Accession to the Apostille Convention

On May 14 2019, the Philippines' accession to the Apostille Convention took effect, where foreign public documents from Apostille-contracting countries (except for Austria, Finland, Germany and Greece), once Apostillised, need not be authenticated by Philippine embassies and consulate generals in order to be recognised and accepted in the Philippines. This significantly reduces the inconvenience, time and expense in the authentication of documents. Conversely, Philippine public documents need not undergo diplomatic or consular authentication for the same to be accepted in fellow Apostille-contracting countries. The previous process of authentication by the Philippine consulate offices shall continue to apply to countries and territories which are not Apostille-contracting parties.

hechanova.jpg
barredo.jpg

Editha R Hechanova

Chrissie Ann L Barredo


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

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article