South Africa: Examining Examination

Last Updated: 30 October 2013
Article by Pieter Visagie

A question that has received some attention and has elicited some debate recently, particularly since South Africa has joined the BRIC group of countries to form BRICS, is whether or not the South African Patent Office should implement substantive examination as part of its patent prosecution process.  The motivation of this article is not to participate actively in that debate or exhaustively to discuss all of the issues relevant to it, but rather to provide some context for it and raise selected thoughts on some of the issues that may have to be taken into account in taking a decision on implementation.

For the layman, some background is necessary:  In terms of Section 25 of the South African Patents Act, a patent may be granted for any subject matter the nature of which is not such that it is explicitly excluded from patentability under the Patents Act (intrinsic patentability) and which, moreover, complies with the requirements of substantive patentability (extrinsic patentability), these being novelty, inventiveness and applicability in trade, industry or agriculture.  In practice at the South African Patent Office, however, the subject matter of a patent application is not examined as to the intrinsic or extrinsic patentability thereof before a patent is granted therefor.  All that the Patent Office does is to examine whether or not the formal requirements set by the Patents Act have been completed by the applicant within the time periods set by the Act, upon completion of which the Patent Office accepts the patent specification in which the subject matter is described and, within three months thereafter, grants a patent on the application.  In practice, therefore, one can effectively obtain a patent in South Africa for reinventing the wheel (naturally, though, ethical considerations would preclude pursuing this).

Does it therefore follow that there is no remedy for a person confronted with an infringement action instituted against him/her on the basis of a patent that has been granted for unpatentable subject matter? Certainly not, since whilst South African patents are regarded as prima facie valid and enforceable, the Patents Act provides explicitly that a patent may be revoked on application to the Commissioner of Patents by any interested person, inter alia on the basis that a patent should not have been granted for the subject matter of the patent under Section 25.

Whilst (hopefully) a case can be made out for the substantive patentability of the subject matter of most patent applications filed at the Patent Office (and therefore of most patents granted by the Patent Office), it is of course so that there are cases in which patents are granted for unpatentable subject matter or where the case to be made for the patentability of particular subject matter is weak.  Naturally, the granting of exclusive rights of making, using, exercising, disposing or offering to dispose of and importing subject matter that was, in the first place, not entitled to be protected by such exclusive rights cannot, in principle, be supported.  The problematic nature thereof that unwarranted granting of such rights does, in some instances, occur, is exacerbated by the fact that these rights that are granted are, as has been stated above, regarded as prima facie valid and enforceable, leaving a person confronted with an infringement action on the basis of such a patent in an undeserved position.  In principle from this perspective, therefore, it would appear that practicing substantive patent examination would be supportable.

It is worth bearing in mind that the ideological basis of the patent system is to cultivate and stimulate research and development, desiring to have to effect competition between businesses not only on the basis of business models and brands, but more prominently on the basis of technology.  The manner in which the patent system seeks to achieve this is by offering an exclusive monopoly for subject matter of a particular (substantively patentable) quality in exchange for contributing that subject matter to the public (through the publication of an enabling description thereof as part of the patent prosecution process).  The monopoly that is granted is, from a business perspective, anti-competitive as it excludes competitors in the same subject matter field from using the subject matter for which the monopoly was granted.  However, the existence of the monopoly necessitates from competitors confronted with the patented technology to employ their own ingenuity to remain competitive, possibly on the basis of further enhanced, and patentable, technology.  And so the wheel should turn.  From this perspective, it can be said that the granting of patents is supportable and, in fact desirable.  Necessarily, however, there is a qualification in what has been said in relation to the desirability to safeguard the integrity of the patent system by ensuring that the quality of the subject matter for which a patent is granted is such that it qualifies for the available monopoly, suggesting an even stronger desirability for substantive examination of the subject matter of patent applications to ensure that the available monopoly is not granted lightly. 

There are, however, other (circumstantial) factors to consider.  Before concluding, from what has been said thus far, that substantive patent examination appears to be warranted, it is worth taking into consideration and investigating the decrease, and in fact the sharp decline, in South African patent applications filed by South African residents and companies.  Statistics evidence this decline, with the number of such patent applications in 2010 being about 55% of the number filed in 1990 (keep in mind that a portion of the applications filed by South African residents are 'provisional' applications, which do not lead directly to the grant of a patent; the actual number of patents granted to South Africans is therefore likely to be even lower).  Obviously, this trend cannot be ascribed to difficulties in getting a granted patent in South Africa.  This begs the question of what the practical effect of the implementation of a substantive examination practice would be on the utilisation of the patent system by South Africans themselves.  Take into account that the costs associated with pursuing patent protection in South Africa would escalate in such a case, as would the duration for finalising the patent process.  The risk associated with the filing of a patent application would also increase, since the outcome of the prosecution process would, in a substantive patent examining environment, be uncertain.  In light of the already existing trend and these concerns, it seems reasonable to suggest that the implementation of a patent examination practice could have a seriously negative effect on the South African patent system insofar as its benefit to the local trade, industry and agriculture is concerned, which benefit is already under-exploited.  In an environment in which our percentage of GDP spent on research and development is low compared to that of some of our BRICS counterparts and in which the news headlines recently claim that economic growth in South Africa has 'hit the brakes', one can argue that we can hardly afford to knee-halter the intended usefulness of our patent system, even if it means that there are cases in which 'improper' subject matter slips through the cracks.  We should perhaps rather look into ways of increasing patenting activity. 

As an example of how an examination system can have a negative effect on the usefulness of a country's patent system (insofar as its ability to grant patents within a reasonable time frame goes), one can look at the situation at the patent office of one of our BRICS partners, namely Brazil.  Brazil's patent office seems to be having difficulty finalising the prosecution of patent applications within less than between 5 and 10 years from the date of application.  Obviously, it is difficult to support any practice that would result in the duration of patent prosecution approximating a patent term (20 years), considering that the reward offered by the patent system for contribution to the pool of public knowledge would thereby become diluted and, eventually, could become extinguished.  The unduly long pendency of the realisation or refusal of the granting of rights to applicants could also result in their business interests being prejudiced.

Remaining with Brazil, for interest, statistics of the World Intellectual Property Organisation show that the number of patent grants Brazil's patent office finalises per year is, on average, about 16% compared to the filings in Brazil in the same year.  In the case of our other BRICS partner, China, which is also a country that practices substantive patent examination, this figure is significantly better at about 30%. South Africa, being a non-examining country, achieves an average of about 65%.  Naturally, there is a lag between the filing of a patent application and the grant of a patent on that application which was not compensated for in the above statistics, but any variance in this regard should even out through time and, regardless, the point appears to be supported that South Africa (like Brazil if you assume comparable capacity and skills shortages) is in danger of experiencing a significant decline in its rate of granting patents and of quickly accruing a significant backlog if it implements a substantive patent examination practice.  This could naturally affect the attractiveness of the patent system, both from the perspective of local and foreign industries.  Such a situation could also, one could argue, have a negative effect on foreign investment and foreign technology exploitation in South Africa, as foreign investors would be uncertain of whether or not they would be able to rely on expediently granted prima facie valid (see below) patent rights to protect their investments, at least insofar their prima facie validity can be upheld.  In a developing economy one should surely favour a practice that attracts investors and not one that obstructs them.  Arguments to the effect that such a practice is undesired by reason thereof that it has situations to effect where exclusivity is granted for unpatentable subject matter, with competition in the market on the basis of such unpatentable subject matter then being unfairly limited, are valid, but proponents of such arguments should consider that the option remains for third parties to challenge such rights if they feel that it was granted undeservedly from a substantive perspective.  Undue limitation on the market for the duration of the patent term would therefore only realise if the industry allows it to.

From the abovementioned perspective, and taking into account the nature of South African industry and the suggestion that technology competing is second to business model and brand competing, as well as a supposed desire to change the weighting in this regard, the practice of granting patents only on the basis of formal examination is not so nonsensical.  This does, of course, not at all imply that South African industry cannot develop (and is not in the process of developing) to a level at which broad based substantive patent examination could become a necessity, but it would appear at present, particularly from the local patent application filing statistics, that the local South African industry patent output (and the static activity in local patent litigation) does not justify the introduction of substantive patent examination.  From the perspective of the local industry therefore (discounting any effect that the granting of low-quality South African patents on applications originating from foreign countries might have on the local economy) it may well be worth considering delaying any talk of substantive patent examination pending further economic and industrial development, at least up to a point where it becomes apparent that technology competing would reach a level at which it can reasonably be anticipated that the economy, and particularly healthy competition in industry, could be negatively affected by the present examining practice.

What should also be borne in mind in assessing the question of whether or not to implement substantive examination is that we are confronted in South Africa with some sectors of industry that are further developed than others by being more active in and, in remaining competitive, relying more extensively on technological development.  For different sectors there may therefore be different answers, which would make it difficult to take a decision on whether or not broad based substantive examination must be implemented, avoiding a negative impact on the patenting / technology development trend in some less active sectors.  The sectoral impact of public interest and public policy can also not be ignored, referring in particular to the health sector, considerations pertaining to which are briefly discussed next.  It can be appreciated at this stage already, however, from the perspectives discussed thus far, that the question of whether or not to implement a substantive examination practice is not answered with reference only to legal principles, but also with reference to economic, and necessarily also socio-economic, considerations.

At this stage, in order to provide yet a further, and influential, perspective on the matter, it is worth alluding to the arena in which the abovementioned debate on substantive patent examination is most actively conducted, being that of the pharmaceutical industry.  To understand this debate, one must firstly understand nature of the players.  Pharmaceutical companies can, generally speaking, be divided into two groups, namely the so-called 'originators' and the so-called 'generics'.  The business of generic companies is, again generally speaking, the manufacture and distribution of generic medicines.  These medicines are comparable in their constitution, dosage form, administration and effect to corresponding 'original' medicines that are developed through research by originator companies.  Thus, where the originator company conducts the research and testing to develop the original medicine (being the 'originator' or, for patent purposes, 'inventor' of the medicine), the generic company avoids to a large, if not complete, extent such research and testing (and the associated costs) and merely bases its corresponding product on the original medicine, commercialising it as a generic medicine.  As most of us would know, generic medicines are generally somewhat cheaper than original medicines, arguably at least partly by reason thereof that the generic companies do not have to recover, through their commercialisation, any research and development costs (which the originator has, and on economic principles should be allowed, to do). 

Naturally, an original medicine would, in most cases at least, be the subject of a patent, typically insofar its active chemical agent is concerned.  In some cases, such an initial patent for an original medicine could be followed up by further patent applications (and, in South Africa, routinely by granted patents) directed to additional aspects of the active agent, chemical variants and/or particular formulations and/or uses thereof (within limits of formal allowability at least, but also, one would hope, on the basis of bona fide prima facie patentability).  Such additional aspects may have resulted from further refinement, research and development, and the like.  The argument is, however, then that patents granted on such subsequent applications could serve further to protect essentially the same original medicine, extending the period over which it is protected beyond the 20 year period that is/was granted by the initial patent  (for interest: this practice is generally labelled 'evergreening' of patent rights).  Whilst, in effect, evergreening might be occurring in some cases, one must keep in mind that if the subject matter of such a subsequent application satisfies, prima facie, the requirements for patentability, it would be difficult to argue that it would be unethical, purely from a patenting perspective, to pursue patent protection for such subject matter and, in South Africa, obtaining a patent for it.   It would of course be improper, where the subject matter of such subsequent patent applications is not patentable over that of the first patent, to allow the subsequent application to proceed to grant and give the proprietor thereof a footing for protecting subject matter that does not prima facie qualify for the protection that is regarded, in turn, as prima facie valid.  Similarly, it would be frowned upon to pursue, in the first place, patent protection for subject matter for which a prima facie case for substantive patentability cannot be made out.  This is particularly relevant in a sector as essential as the health sector.  The argument is then that public health and economic considerations related to public health (manifesting particularly in the cost of medicines) necessitates substantive examination of the subject matter of patent applications, at least in the pharmaceutical sector, to ensure that the public is protected against undeserved 'evergreening' practices.  One should keep in mind, however, that if the differences in subject matter between the initial and subsequent patents are so trivial that these differences are unpatentable, the subsequent patents would in any event be unenforceable when tested in a court of law, or even during the pre-litigation phase considering that it would be questionable to proceed to attempt enforcement where a dangerously vulnerable argument in favour of patentability is to be advanced.  However, if a prima facie sustainable argument of patentability can be sustained, however, the filing of a patent application for related though different subject matter would, arguably, be justified.

Necessarily, there are conflicts between the various perspectives that have been advanced in this article, in that where one perspective supports a case for the implementation of patent examination on the basis of public health interests, the other makes out a case less in favour of such implementation on the basis of economical interests.  More particularly, where the economics of public health may suggest justification for implementing substantive patent examination, the potential for prejudice to other technology areas (particularly those in which research and development actively occur in the absence of technological competition, the existence of which would, arguably, have justified implementation) due to foreseeable difficulties in effecting implementation suggests otherwise, for the moment at least.

What can be said then is that the debate surrounding patent examination is clearly one that is multi-faceted and complicated and not one which can be approached and concluded superficially.  Each of the perspectives advanced herein has been so advance merely superficially and necessarily much more detailed attention must be paid thereto in deciding on the implementation of patent examination, or not.  If the decision is eventually (and hopefully not prematurely) taken, in principle, that South African patent applications should be subjected, in some form or another, to substantive examination of their subject matter, it would be wise to tailor the practice according to which such substantive examination is carried out such that it sits comfortably with the interests of as many sectors as is practically possible and that the patent system itself is not sacrificed on the altar of the considerations of one sector at the cost of other sectors.  There are various models to consider in this regard, which are not discussed here.  Overall, it is necessary to appreciate that a patent system must still serve its ideological basis to the benefit of its territorial economy.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
KISCH IP
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
KISCH IP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions