Under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, patent applications filed in other countries may take as their effective date the filing date of a United States application. The Applicant would thereby gain priority in such countries over other applicants which file after the U.S. filing date. However, applicants can take advantage of this international provision only by filing within one year of the U.S. filing date.

On the other hand, while the U.S. has signed the Paris Convention, there presently exists no unified scheme to secure patent rights worldwide, except as such rights may be extended through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), and the European Patent Convention (EPC). U.S. applicants therefore may not file one application, but must patent register country-by-country, preserving priority through the PCT and EPC (the EU is a special case of regional rights established by the EPC and the new Community Design Law).

As Patents are grants of rights by governmental authority, patent rights are strictly territorial; each sovereign nation grants such rights, and controls their application, and patent rights in any one country extend to the borders of that country. However, most countries have subscribed to one or more international agreements which may affect the availability or scope of rights within those countries. The rights of patent owners and applicants are therefore controlled in part by the following International Patent Agreements, and in part by the laws of the country (state) in which patent rights are to be exercised.

Patent "Protection" Treaties

The first general group of treaties defines internationally agreed basic standards governing intellectual property in each country. For example, foreign applicants are treated on an equal footing with nationals of the country in which registration is sought ("national treatment") under the Paris Convention. These treaties include the following:

1. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industial Property
2. Patent Law Treaty

Global Patent "Protection" Systems Treaties

The second general group, know as the global protection system treaties, ensure that one international registration or filing will have effect in any (selected) signatory State. The services provided by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under these treaties simplify the procedure and reduce the cost of filing applications and supporting documents in all the countries in which patent rights are sought. These treaties include the following:

3. Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
4. Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty
5. Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs
   1. London Act 1934
   2. The Hague Act 1960
   3. Additional Act of Monaco of November 18, 1961
   4. Complementary Act of Stockholm of July 14, 1967 as amended on September 28, 1979
   5. Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs and Regulations Under the Geneva Act

6. Regulations Under the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs
7. Administrative Instructions for the Application of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs
8. Hague System for the International Deposit of Industrial Designs

Classification Treaties

The third and final general group of treaties consists of classification treaties, which create classification systems that organize information concerning trademarks into indexed, manageable structures for easy retrieval. These treaties include the following:

9. Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs
10. Strasbourg Agreement Concerning the International Patent Classification.

Chapter Seventeen: Intellectual Property

Article 1701: Nature and Scope of Obligations

1. Each Party shall provide in its territory to the nationals of another Party adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, while ensuring that measures to enforce intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade.

2. To provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, each Party shall, at a minimum, give effect to this Chapter and to the substantive provisions of:
   1. the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of their Phonograms, 1971 (Geneva Convention);
   2. the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1971 (Berne Convention);
   3. the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1967 (Paris Convention); and
   4. the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, 1978 (UPOV Convention), or the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, 1991 (UPOV Convention).

   If a Party has not acceded to the specified text of any such Conventions on or before the date of entry into force of this Agreement, it shall make every effort to accede.

3. Annex 1701.3 applies to the Parties specified in that Annex.

Article 1702: More Extensive Protection

A Party may implement in its domestic law more extensive protection of intellectual property rights than is required under this Agreement, provided that such protection is not inconsistent with this Agreement.

Article 1703: National Treatment

1. Each Party shall accord to nationals of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection and enforcement of all intellectual property rights. In respect of sound recordings, each Party shall provide such treatment to producers and performers of another Party, except that a Party may limit rights of performers of another Party in respect of secondary uses of sound recordings to those rights its nationals are accorded in the territory of such other Party.

2. No Party may, as a condition of according national treatment under this Article, require right holders to comply with any formalities or conditions in order to acquire rights in respect of copyright and related rights.

3. A Party may derogate from paragraph 1 in relation to its judicial and administrative procedures for the protection or enforcement of intellectual property rights, including any procedure requiring a national of another Party to designate for service of process an address in the Party's territory or to appoint an agent in the Party's territory, if the derogation is consistent with the relevant Convention listed in Article 1701(2), provided that such derogation:
   1. is necessary to secure compliance with measures that are not inconsistent with this Chapter; and
   2. is not applied in a manner that would constitute a disguised restriction on trade.

4. No Party shall have any obligation under this Article with respect to procedures provided in multilateral agreements concluded under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization relating to the acquisition or maintenance of intellectual property rights.

Article 1704: Control of Abusive or Anticompetitive Practices or Conditions

Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent a Party from specifying in its domestic law licensing practices or conditions that may in particular cases constitute an abuse of intellectual property rights having an adverse effect on competition in the relevant market. A Party may adopt or maintain, consistent with the other provisions of this Agreement, appropriate measures to prevent or control such practices or conditions.

Article 1709: Patents

1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, each Party shall make patents available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that such inventions are new, result from an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. For purposes of this Article, a Party may deem the terms "inventive step" and "capable of industrial application" to be synonymous with the terms "non-obvious" and "useful", respectively.

2. A Party may exclude from patentability inventions if preventing in its territory the commercial exploitation of the inventions is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to nature or the environment, provided that the exclusion is not based solely on the ground that the Party prohibits commercial exploitation in its territory of the subject matter of the patent.

3. A Party may also exclude from patentability:
   1. diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals;

   2. plants and animals other than microorganisms; and

   3. essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals, other than non-biological and microbiological processes for such production.

   Notwithstanding subparagraph (b), each Party shall provide for the protection of plant varieties through patents, an effective scheme of sui generis protection, or both.

4. If a Party has not made available product patent protection for pharmaceutical or agricultural chemicals commensurate with paragraph 1:
   1. as of January 1, 1992, for subject matter that relates to naturally occurring substances prepared or produced by, or significantly derived from, microbiological processes and intended for food or medicine, and
   2. as of July 1, 1991, for any other subject matter,

   that Party shall provide to the inventor of any such product or its assignee the means to obtain product patent protection for such product for the unexpired term of the patent for such product granted in another Party, as long as the product has not been marketed in the Party providing protection under this paragraph and the person seeking such protection makes a timely request.

5. Each Party shall provide that:

   1. where the subject matter of a patent is a product, the patent shall confer on the patent owner the right to prevent other persons from making, using or selling the subject matter of the patent, without the patent owner's consent; and

   2. where the subject matter of a patent is a process, the patent shall confer on the patent owner the right to prevent other persons from using that process and from using, selling, or importing at least the product obtained directly by that process, without the patent owner's consent.

6. A Party may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking into account the legitimate interests of other persons.

7. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the field of technology, the territory of the Party where the invention was made and whether products are imported or locally produced.

8. A Party may revoke a patent only when:

   1. grounds exist that would have justified a refusal to grant the patent; or

   2. the grant of a compulsory license has not remedied the lack of exploitation of the patent.

9. Each Party shall permit patent owners to assign and transfer by succession their patents, and to conclude licensing contracts.

10. Where the law of a Party allows for use of the subject matter of a patent, other than that use allowed under paragraph 6, without the authorization of the right holder, including use by the government or other persons authorized by the government, the Party shall respect the following provisions:

    1. authorization of such use shall be considered on its individual merits;

    2. such use may only be permitted if, prior to such use, the proposed user has made efforts to obtain authorization from the right holder on reasonable commercial terms and conditions and such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period of time. The requirement to make such efforts may be waived by a Party in the case of a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in cases of public non-commercial use. In situations of national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency, the right holder shall, nevertheless, be notified as soon as reasonably practicable. In the case of public non-commercial use, where the government or contractor, without making a patent search, knows or has demonstrable grounds to know that a valid patent is or will be used by or for the government, the right holder shall be informed promptly;

    3. the scope and duration of such use shall be limited to the purpose for which it was authorized;

    4. such use shall be non-exclusive;

    5. such use shall be non-assignable, except with that part of the enterprise or goodwill that enjoys such use;

    6. any such use shall be authorized predominantly for the supply of the Party's domestic market;

    7. authorization for such use shall be liable, subject to adequate protection of the legitimate interests of the persons so authorized, to be terminated if and when the circumstances that led to it cease to exist and are unlikely to recur. The competent authority shall have the authority to review, on motivated request, the continued existence of these circumstances;

    8. the right holder shall be paid adequate remuneration in the circumstances of each case, taking into account the economic value of the authorization;

    9. the legal validity of any decision relating to the authorization shall be subject to judicial or other independent review by a distinct higher authority;

    10. any decision relating to the remuneration provided in respect of such use shall be subject to judicial or other independent review by a distinct higher authority;

    11. the Party shall not be obliged to apply the conditions set out in subparagraphs (b) and (f) where such use is permitted to remedy a practice determined after judicial or administrative process to be anticompetitive. The need to correct anticompetitive practices may be taken into account in determining the amount of remuneration in such cases. Competent authorities shall have the authority to refuse termination of authorization if and when the conditions that led to such authorization are likely to recur;

    12. the Party shall not authorize the use of the subject matter of a patent to permit the exploitation of another patent except as a remedy for an adjudicated violation of domestic laws regarding anticompetitive practices.

11. Where the subject matter of a patent is a process for obtaining a product, each Party shall, in any infringement proceeding, place on the defendant the Burden of establishing that the allegedly infringing product was made by a process other than the patented process in one of the following situations:

    1. the product obtained by the patented process is new; or

    2. a substantial likelihood exists that the allegedly infringing product was made by the process and the patent owner has been unable through reasonable efforts to determine the process actually used.

    In the gathering and evaluation of evidence, the legitimate interests of the defendant in protecting its trade secrets shall be taken into account.

12. Each Party shall provide a term of protection for patents of at least 20 years from the date of filing or 17 years from the date of grant. A Party may extend the term of patent protection, in appropriate cases, to compensate for delays caused by regulatory approval processes.