In response to Circular C. PCT 1625, two Offices made counter proposals as summarized 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 the 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 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 IP Office under its applicable national/regional law to be recognized during the international phase sounds like an attractive solution, this would lead to a system where the acceptance of certain types of signature would vary from Office to Office. Any verification as to 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, this idea would run contrary to the principle that formality requirements are set out in the PCT itself and apply in a like manner to all applicants and Offices.
Offices and NGOs are welcome to provide comments on this page, in particular, providing answers to the following questions by February 28, 2022:
-Would your Office favor a PCT definition of what constitutes a signature or would you prefer to leave the definition of acceptable signatures to each Office?
-If there were a definition int he PCT of what constitutes a signature, would your Office require the PCT to include an incompatibility provision to allow your Office the possibility to opt out from accepting certain types of signatures? If so, please provide an explanation.
