Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Singapore: IPOS clarifies route for correcting mistakes in patent applications

Following last year's decision in Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma Co ([2017] SGHC 322), the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has recently provided clarification on the provisions of the Singapore Patents Act and the Singapore Patents Rules regarding the correction of errors in filed patent applications. The Novartis v Bristol-Myers case primarily concerned a family of four Singapore patents (one parent and three divisional patents) all claiming priority from a United States provisional patent application.

When Bristol-Myers filed a PCT application from US provisional patent application US 60/088,981 having a priority date of June 11 1998, a typographical error was made and priority was erroneously made to US provisional patent application US 60/089,981 which is directed to a completely different invention. The PCT application was subsequently published with the incorrect priority application. This error was not detected at the time of the national phase entry of the PCT application in Singapore. Thus, the incorrect priority claim was subsequently entered in the Register for the parent and the divisional applications.

Novartis argued that Bristol-Myers was not entitled to the priority claim as the priority document referenced related to an entirely different invention. Bristol-Myers applied to IPOS to rectify the errors (including an application for corrections of the priority claims in the divisional applications) using Patents Form 1 via the IPOS online portal as Bristol-Myers concluded that the error in the priority claim referencing the incorrect US priority application number was made during the application process. The application for corrections using Patents Form 1 was unsuccessful. Thereafter, Bristol-Myers wrote a letter to the IPOS registrar of patents asserting that an obvious error had been made in the priority application number, upon which the priority claim relied. In addition, Bristol-Myers indicated in the letter that the interests of third parties would not be affected by the erroneous priority claim since the error was obvious in the documents. IPOS granted the application for corrections under Patents Rule 58. Patents Rule 58 relates to a request for the correction of an error in the Register or in any document filed at the registry in connection with registration.

The Singapore High Court decided that the request for correction of the errors should not have been granted as the Patent Register accurately recorded the priority claim patent application number as indicated in the published applications and the forms filed.

Based on the Singapore High Court's holding in the Novartis v Bristol-Myers case, IPOS has clarified that reference to "documents filed in connection with registration" recited in Rule 58 relates to documents filed in relation to an application for registration of transactions such as a mortgage or transmission upon death. IPOS has also clarified that Patents Form 1 is a document that is required for an application for grant of a patent and is not a document filed at the Registry in connection with registration. Therefore, Rule 91 would be the applicable rule for the correction of an error in Patents Form 1. Patents Rule 91 relates to a request for the correction of an error of translation or transcription, or of a clerical error or mistake, in a specification of a patent, an application for a patent, or any document filed in connection with a patent or such application.

IPOS has further clarified that the request to correct the declared priority information under Rule 91 would only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. The factors likely to be considered when determining exceptional grounds as stated by the Singapore High Court include the impact of the error on the rights and interest of third parties, the nature of the error, whether the error is readily obvious on the face of the published application or if it is by reference to other documents in the patent file, the time between the publication and the date of the request for correction, and the reasons provided for the delay.


Daniel Collopy

Edy Rusbandi

Spruson & Ferguson (Asia) Pte Ltd152 Beach Road#37-05/06 Gateway EastSingapore 189721Tel: +65 6333 7200Fax: +65 6333

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Significant changes to the standard of law are unlikely, say sources, who note that some justices seemed sceptical that the parties disagreed on the legal standard
Sources say the High Court of Australia’s ruling that reputation is immaterial in trademark infringement cases could stop famous brands from muscling out smaller players
Members from both sides of the US House of Representatives wrote to USPTO director Kathi Vidal on Friday, March 24, expressing their concern about “patent thicketing.”
Charles Hoskin of Singaporean e-commerce platform Shopee, who made the jump from a luxury brand, says honest conversations and collaborations are key to combatting counterfeiting
Adam Williams speaks to Managing IP about the legacy of Brexit and why IP has sometimes got ‘lost in the noise’ at Westminster
Lawyers wish the latest manual had more details on Federal Circuit cases and that training materials for design patent examiners were online
Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP