asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of patent and trade mark applications which were pending in 1965 when the staff complement of the Patents Office was agreed; and the total number of similar applications which were pending on the date on which that staff complement was recently filled.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Patents Office.
40.
The number of patent applications pending on 31st March, 1965, was 4,428 and the number pending on 31st March, 1972, was 6,826. I must emphasise that a large proportion of these applications await action by the applicant before they can be examined.
The number of trade mark applications pending on 31st March, 1965, was 2,238 and the number pending on 31st March, 1972, was 3,000.
Arising from the reply and the fact, that the Minister has taken note of, that the number of patent and trade mark applications is now 50 per cent higher than it was in 1965, does the Minister seriously consider that he will make an indent on the backlog of work in the Patent Office by having, in 1972, for the first time, the complement of staff which was considered sufficient in 1965 to perform work which was 50 per cent of what the work is now?
The Deputy is asking a question arising from the complement of staff which is mentioned in a later question. In fact, the difficulty about trying to deal with a problem like this is that to examine it on the basis of the figures presented does not give an accurate impression of the position. I have already conceded on a previous day that I am unhappy with the backlog but, on the other hand, there is no doubt that applications remain on the file as applications even though further information is required. That information must be supplied by the applicant. This is unattended to. There are a number of applications in a pileup of cases that cannot be attended to until further information is supplied by the applicant. In many cases this information is not forthcoming.
I congratulate the Minister on giving a good explanation of a terrible situation. However, it does not answer my question although it is a plausible explanation.
41.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if, with a view to assisting and encouraging Irish inventors, he will arrange to have priority given to Irish applications in the Patents Office.
The provisions of the Patents Acts and Rules apply to inventions without distinction as to the nationality or place of residence of the inventor. There is nothing in the Act or rules which would enable priority of examination to be given to Irish applications for patents. Furthermore, to do this would be contrary to our international obligations.
42.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of applications in respect of Irish inventions at present pending in the Patents Office.
The number of patent applications from residents of the State pending in the Patents Office on 27th April, 1972, was 456 of which about 300 await action by the applicant before they can be examined. It is expected that eventually over 200 of them will be abandoned before they are completed and made ready for examination.
Is the Minister aware that applicants for patents and trade marks in Ireland frequently are required by the Irish Patents Office to furnish information, explanations and additional material which they are not required to furnish in any other country? Would the Minister accept that this is probably a cause of the delays in the Irish Patents Office, that we are unreasonable in the demands we make on applicants?
I do not accept that this is the situation. Since the Deputy raised this matter in the House some time ago I have had the opportunity of reading an exhaustive report of a similar situation in the United States where the problem of coping with a backlog of applications is being tackled. I am not aware that our Patents Office ask for information that no other Patents Office seeks. In relation to the question of delay, I would point out that normally an applicant for a patent here also applies to the Patents Office in London for a patent for the United Kingdom. From the point of view of applicants the English market is regarded as more important and a patent here is no good if a patent is not obtained in the UK. Having submitted an application to our Patents Office they make an application for an English patent. Normally, they do not follow up with the fullest information to our Patents Office until they get their patent in England. It may take three years before they further process their patent here.
Surely the Minister is aware that frequently a year passes between the date of the original application here and the application in England? Yet the British Patents Office will issue a patent long before the Irish Patents Office even gets round to asking the first query on the application.
I have no evidence to indicate that is so.
I can assure the Minister that is the position.
43.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the annual income and expenditure of the Patents Office in each of the last five years.
The annual income and expenditure of the Patents Office in each of the five years ended 31st March, 1971, was as follows:
|
Year ended |
Income |
Expenditure |
|
£ |
£ |
|
|
31st March, 1967 |
88,270 |
116,582 |
|
31st March, 1968 |
95,476 |
104,728 |
|
31st March, 1969 |
113,460 |
106,310 |
|
31st March, 1970 |
114,499 |
104,979 |
|
31st March, 1971 |
122,064 |
126,288 |
Income for the year ended 31st March, 1972, was £140,870. The expenditure for that year is not yet available.
44.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number, rank and qualification of the staff complement sanctioned for the Patents and Trade Office in 1965; and the number of persons with legal qualifications on the staff.
The information requested by the Deputy is in the form of a tabular statement which, with your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I propose to circulate with the Official Report. I have assumed that the Deputy's question relates to the staff complement at present sanctioned.
Following is the statement:
|
Grade |
Number of posts |
Qualifications |
|
Administrative: |
||
|
Controller |
1 |
Appointed by the Government in accordance with Section 78 of the Patents Act, 1964. |
|
Assistant Principal |
2 |
These are General Service grades for whose appointment no special professional qualifications are required. They do, however, receive special on-the-job training. |
|
Higher Executive Officer |
6 |
|
|
Executive Officer |
13 |
|
|
Staff Officer |
5 |
|
|
Clerical Officer |
4 |
|
|
Clerical Assistant—Clerical |
26 |
|
|
Clerical Assistant—Typing |
9 |
|
|
Professional: |
||
|
Examiners |
11 |
University degrees or equivalent qualifications in either chemistry, engineering or physics. |
Legal qualifications are not a prerequisite for the appointment of any of the grades serving in the Patents Office. Advice from the Attorney General's Office is available to the Controller when necessary.
Would the Minister be good enough to give orally the reply to the last part of my question regarding the number of persons on the staff who have legal qualifications?
Legal qualifications are not a prerequisite for any of the grades in the Patents Office.
Is the Minister aware that the Irish Patents Office is unique in that it is not essential to have at least one qualified lawyer on the staff? This lack or default on the part of the Irish Patents Office leads to the raising of innumerable legal questions which a first-year solicitor's apprentice would be able to answer. This is one of the principal causes of the delays, particularly in the trade mark section. Because of this inadequacy in the Patents Office consultations have to take place with the Attorney General's Office which is not in a position to cope with the demands made. Will the Minister ensure that when the staff complement is increased at least one of the successful applicants will have legal qualifications?
The Deputy on a previous occasion implied that the difficulty in this regard is greater here than in any other country. At that time I was not in a position to contradict him because I had not checked on the matter. I should like to inform the Deputy that from the research I have carried out in the past fortnight I have not found that any part of the world was happy about the manner in which patent applications are dealt with. I am not speaking as a legal man, but I have never found that a sufficiency of legal men in any Department has had any effect in speeding up matters.
The Minister would probably find it would speed up matters in the Patents Office. From my experience of some years as a member of the Science and Technology Committee of the Council of Europe, I can tell the Minister that the only thing that makes other countries happy in this regard is when they compare their services with the confusion and chaos that exists in the Irish patent service.
That is laying it on a bit thick.
I can assure the Minister that is the case.
I am glad the Deputy did not say that they became happy when they got legal advice.
45.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of (a) patent and (b) trade mark applications in 1964, 1965 and 1971.
The information requested by the Deputy is as follows:
|
Year |
Patent Applications |
Trade Mark Applications |
|
1964 |
1,344 |
1,759 |
|
1965 |
1,363 |
1,948 |
|
1971 |
1,666 |
2,347 |
The Deputy will see we are doing so well that there is an increase in demand.
That may be so but can the Minister tell us what he is doing to increase the staff complement in order to cope with the increased demand and the backlog, which we have on the record of the House? The figures justify at least a 50 per cent increase in the staff as compared with 1965 and possibly more in order to clear the backlog.
I indicated on a previous occasion that we had succeeded in getting the number of staff that had been indicated to us some years ago.
That was when the workload was half what it is now.
I indicated I was examining this matter with a view to seeing if I could make arrangements for a further increase in staff in order to cope with the work.