In response to Circular C. PCT 1625, two Offices made counter proposals as summarized in below.
One Office wished to allow Offices to accept any form of signature that is considered valid under the applicable national/regional law before that Office for purposes of the international phase of the PCT procedure, provided that the Office had notified the International Bureau of the types of signature that it accepts
One Office proposed a re-wording of the draft Section as follows: “Where a document is submitted to an Office, Authority, or the International Bureau on paper, that Office, Authority, or International Bureau may permit the signature provided on such document to be handwritten, printed, typed, or stamped”
Views of the International Bureau:
While allowing any valid form of signature before an IP Office to be recognized during the international phase sounds like an attractive solution, the International Bureau would be concerned that this would lead to a system where the acceptance of certain types of signature would vary from Offices to Offices. Any verification on whether a particular signature is valid would depend on an interpretation of the national law of the Office to which the document bearing the signature was submitted. Apart from adding further complexity to the PCT system, it would also run contrary to the principle that formality requirements are governed directly by the PCT itself and would then apply in a like manner to all applicants and Offices.
Offices and NGOs are welcomed to provide comments on this page, in particular, providing answers to the following questions:
-Would your Office favour a PCT definition of what constitutes a signature or would you prefer to leave the definition of acceptable signatures to each Office?
-Would your Office requires an opt-out possibility for certain types of signatures?
