Introduction:First, AIPLA would like to thank you in advance for taking the time to provide us with your feedbackon this important topic.Please set aside at least one hour to respond to Part A of this survey, and one hour to respond toParts B and C combined. Please feel free to review the reference documents linked below in advance of starting the survey.These reference documents are described in Section I. Background and referred throughout thesurvey. We look forward to receiving your feedback. - The Harmonization Task Force Reference Documents

Link to TF Scenarios, cited by slide # ("TF/#"), which provide different fact patterns involving graceperiod and prior user rights.Link to Glossary of Acronyms and Select Terms used in this survey.Note: You will need to sign in as an AIPLA member in order to access this document. Table of Contents: Section I. BACKGROUND A. AIPLA's Role in Harmonization Initiatives B. AIPLA's Harmonization Task Force Goals C. Consideration of Real World Factors and Grace Period PolicySection II. PRACTICAL REAL WORLD FACTORSSection III. BASIC PRINCIPLES of a HARMONIZED GRACE PERIOD POLICY: Scope and Rights to Grace Period (found in Part A of the Survey)Section IV. BASIC PRINCIPLES of a HARMONIZED GRACE PERIOD POLICY: Statement Submission Requirements (found in Part A of the Survey)

Introduction, Reference Documents and Table of Contents

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

1

DRAFT

Section V. BASIC PRINCIPLES of the WORKSTREAM for a HARMONIZED PRIOR USER RIGHTSPOLICY (HPURP) (Part B of the survey)Tell Us About Your Practice (Part C of the survey) NOTE: Based upon feedback received from Beta testing participants, we have broken down thesurvey into three parts, so that each part may be taken at different times (to ease the timecommitment required in one sitting). It is imperative that you complete all three parts of the survey,not only so that you are aware of all the issues being discussed during the harmonizationdiscussions, but also to ensure the Harmonization Task Force understands your perspectives fullybased upon your responses in all 3 parts.

2

DRAFT

International harmonization of substantive patent law has been a goal for more than 30 years but has eluded

realization due to fundamental disagreement among stakeholders with regard to at least four key issues, including the

existence and scope of a grace period, the existence and scope of prior user rights, the treatment of conflicting applications,

and the publication of all applications at 18 months. With the passage of the America Invents Act in 2011, moving the U.S. on

its own initiative from a first to invent to a first to file system, an international effort was begun to identify underlying

attitudes, practical problems, and best practices with regard to these four issues. A group of interested governments formed

the Tegernsee group and conducted a survey of their constituencies with respect to these issues to determine if there was a

basis for harmonization; the results were encouraging and were published in the Tegernsee Report in 2014 . The task of

following-up with proposals for harmonization was given to the Group B+, a group of WIPO member industrialized countries,

which has engaged in harmonization discussions within separate workstreams on various issues, including grace period,

prior user rights and conflicting applications.

A. AIPLA's Role in Harmonization Initiatives

Industry also has been an active participant in the substantive patent law harmonization discussions, particularly

through the Industry Trilateral activities involving organizations from Europe (BusinessEurope), Japan (JIPA) and the United

States (AIPLA and IPO). Over the past 30 years, AIPLA has supported harmonization in its Board Resolutions and has

actively participated in discussions among industry and with both the Trilateral Offices and the Group B+. The Tegernsee

Report and the new Group B+ initiative, along with the unprecedented view of the governments that industry should lead the

harmonization process, have led to an intensification of that participation.

The task for governments and industry in these harmonization discussions is challenging, as there are fundamental

principles regarding the several issues under discussion that reveal a direct conflict among existing laws and practices

throughout the world. Europe has no grace period, while the grace period in the US is quite broad; the grace period in Japan

is narrower and accompanied by restrictions, such as a strict condition requiring a declaration of intent to claim grace period

at the time of filing. Prior user rights in the U.S. are narrow, arising only for actual commercial activity more than one year

prior to a filing date, while arising in Europe and Japan for preparatory activity prior to a filing or priority date. Where there

are conflicting applications, Europe has a "self-collision" policy, while the U.S. and Japan have anti-self collision policies.

I. BACKGROUND

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

3

DRAFT

Achieving harmonization under those circumstances will require all participants to abandon some of their existing

policies in an effort to achieve a compromise . Ideally the result will be a set of truly "best practices" that will be universally

applicable, easily implemented, and well balanced so that they serve the interests of innovators, both large and small, third

parties, and the public at large. To this end, both the governments and industry recognize that "best practices" must be

examined through a number of practical scenarios that can test the validity of assumptions made and the value of the

outcomes that are achieved.

B. AIPLA's Harmonization Task Force Goals

AIPLA has a Harmonization Task Force that represents AIPLA in the international discussions and at this time seeks to

obtain input from select AIPLA Committees on the practical impact of current proposals for the grace period and related

prior user rights policies.

The Task Force seeks AIPLA Committee input on a number of proposed principles explored in the Group B+

Workstream on Grace Period and in the Group B+ Workstream on Prior User Rights (see documents available at

https://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/harmonisation/group-b-plus.html). The Task Force also seeks input on a set of

TASK FORCE SCENARIOS (TF Scenarios) that are intended to test the proposed principles with greater granularity. The TF

Scenarios are presented as a PowerPoint deck with an illustrated timeline for each of four issues and charts of variable fact

patterns for each issue that requires your input. The four issues concern:

(1) third party re-disclosure of an original graced publication of an applicant,

(2) third party independent pre filing disclosure after an original graced publication of an applicant,

(3) requirement for a statement of pre-filing publication by an applicant, and

(4) the creation of prior user rights for third parties who begin serious and effective implementation of an

invention before an applicant's filing.

I. BACKGROUND (continued)

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

4

DRAFT

For each of the proposed principles and scenarios described in the quesitons of this survey, your answers

should not be constrained by current U.S. law, as the purpose of this consultation is to obtain a comprehensive statement

from each Committee on:

(1) the impact of each proposed principles on innovators and third parties on what you believe to be best

practices for the future, and

(2) the preferred balanced result from an application of those best practices to a variety of fact patterns as

presented in the scenarios.

AIPLA's Harmonization Task Force will use your input to advise the Board of Directors with respect to the key

issues that are being addressed in international discussions and ultimately obtain their guidance as to the positions that

AIPLA should advocate. Therefore, please provide your reasoning and any additional comments in the text boxes within

each questions - - the perspectives you share will be instructive context for your responses

I. BACKGROUND (continued)

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

5

DRAFT

C. Consideration of Real World Factors and Grace Period Policy

To aid in your consideration of the recommendations made by the Group B+ Workstream on Grace Period and by the

Group B+ Workstream on Prior User Rights and the issues illustrated by the set of TF Scenarios, there are three Sections

that follow and provide useful information that has been gleaned from the GROUP B+ WORKSTREAM REPORTS and AIPLA

Harmonization Task Force consultations with other representatives of industry:

Section II identifies some real-world factors that should be considered in determining a policy that realistically could

be first implemented in the next 10 years and would be expected to last for 20 or more years thereafter.

Sections III and IV, respectively, identify certain proposed principles and key issues that arise from the AIPLA

Harmonization Task Force's deliberations concerning grace period and on prior user rights and seek your input.

Accompanying the proposed principles and key issues is a slide deck that contains several TF Scenarios that provide an

illustration of fact patterns and background information relevant to those proposed principles and issues. The scenarios

relevant to the proposed principles and issues are cited by slide number (e.g., TF/3 refers to slide number 3). The proposed

principles identified in Sections III and IV are accompanied by questions that you should address with answers and

reasoning.

This exercise is detailed and complex, but your input by no later than ___________ is requested. This date is critical

because of international meetings that are scheduled for______________.

I. BACKGROUND (continued)

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

6

DRAFT

A. The number of graced events that will require an affirmative exercise of gracing rights to overcome an

unpatentability/invalidity challenge, especially if an effective "file first" policy is adopted, is estimated to be within a range of

4%-6% of filed applications.

1. The Tegernsee Survey showed grace period was asserted within a range of 4-6% of filed Korean

applications when Korea liberalized its grace period policy a few years ago.

2. With an effective "file first" policy, the actual percentage could be at the lower end of the range.

B. The likely scope of graced events that cannot be attributed to an inventor or applicant of a pending application

or issued patent is even smaller:

1. Given that a common author or common applicant name is likely to exist.

2. Given that the grace period policy is not likely to be implemented for 10 years and that technology will

greatly enhance the ability to identify a publication/public disclosure with an inventor or Applicant (comparative technologies

to detect plagiarism already exist today).

C. The scope and types of pre-filing disclosures that would be graced as a matter of law, given a broad category of

novelty-destroying activities that may occur ("otherwise available to the public" under the AIA) is likely to be large because:

1. All NON- CONFIDENTIAL disclosures of ALL or ANY PART of an invention during the grace period may need

to be graced;

2. These include publications, public announcements (especially if captured on video), comments at meetings

and even discussions at lunch or dinner; and

3. These include even "safe" disclosures of less than the claimed invention (e.g., A or AB or AD, where the

invention of concern is ABC).

II. PRACTICAL REAL WORLD FACTORS

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

7

DRAFT

A requirement to submit a statement for the entire spectrum of pre-filing disclosures that would be graced as a matter

of law would involve significant expense and a significant risk of expense for applicants, especially large volume filers.

D. Under the law applied by most Patent Offices, Third Parties can disclose an alleged prior art publication or

public disclosure to the Office anonymously and force the Applicant to either claim benefit of a grace period (demonstrating

the prior art was by/for/from the Applicant or inventor) or amend claims to overcome the prior art. This provides some

certainty for the Third Party, but the Third Party otherwise may not be able to participate in the prosecution.

E. Once a patent is issued because the Examiner never knew of the graced publication/public disclosure, under

current law, the Third Party who knows of or finds the publication/public disclosure, cannot determine if it is by/for/from the

Applicant or inventor (notwithstanding sophisticated investigative techniques) and wants certainty so a new business can be

started, can: (1) take a license, if available, (2) institute a post grant proceeding [ex parte reexamination, opposition or the

like] or (3) institute a declaratory judgment action. All of these are expensive and most involve disclosure of the Third Party

identity and may simply result in the patent owner overcoming the reference by claiming the grace period.

F. Harmonized Grace Period and PUR Policies should provide a balance of interests and burdens among

Applicants, Third Parties and Offices.

G. Because of significant differences between "discovery permitted" and "discovery prohibited" countries,

harmonized Grace Period and PUR Policies should minimize reliance on subjective factors , such as knowledge or intent,

since there are significant and discriminatory differences among legal systems with regard to the availability of discovery of

such factors.

H. Harmonized Grace Period and PUR Policies should be simple and uniformly implemented on a global basis.

II. PRACTICAL REAL WORLD FACTORS (continued)

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

8

DRAFT

Link to TF Scenarios, cited by slide # ("TF/#"), which provide different fact patterns involving grace period and prior user

rights.

Link to Glossary of Acronyms and Select Terms used in this survey.

Note: You will need to sign in as an AIPLA member in order to access these documents.

III. BASIC PRINCIPLES of HARMONIZED GRACE PERIOD: SCOPE OF AND RIGHTS TOA GRACE PERIOD POLICY

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

1. Please assign yourself a Respondent ID for the Part B and Part C of your survey (we suggest something more than 6 characters

long, with numbers and letters, so that there is a higher probably that it is unique to you).

Please keep this for your records - -

You need have to input your Respondent ID in Part B and Part C, so that we could identify you as the respondent of the three parts :

*

9

DRAFT

Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your answer or suggest changes:

2. Proposed Principle - Gracing covers:

a. All publications/public disclosures.

b. Made by/for/from the inventor/Applicant, including re-disclosures by third parties.

c. Within a period of [6 or 12 months] prior to filing of a first patent application.

Note - Assume 12 months from filing or priority date as it appears to be the preferred duration for a Harmonized

Grace Period Policy

Do you agree with the above proposed principle?

*

Yes

No

Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your answer or suggest changes:

3. Proposed Principle: Gracing of a publication/public disclosure is provided as a matter of law. (TF/10)

Do you agree with the above proposed principle?

*

Yes

No

10

DRAFT

Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your response:

4. Proposed Principle - Gracing does not cover any "intervening disclosure" of independently developed subject matter by a third

party (i.e., developed without access to the information of the inventor/Applicant), that is made after an inventor/Applicant's public

disclosure of all or part of an invention, but before inventor/Applicant's filing on the invention .

Do you agree with the above proposed principle?

*

Yes

No

Should* Be Available as Prior Art Should* Not Be Available as Prior Art

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

5. If you answered NO to Question 4 above, consider the following scenarios from the TF Scenarios (TF/5) - - Where there is a

proven independent third party "intervening disclosure" of all or part of the inventor’s original public disclosure within the grace period,

please state for each of the following scenarios whether the independent intervening disclosure should be available as prior art and not

prevented from being prior art by the inventor's earlier disclosure, as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to

achieve global harmonization.

In other words: If you answered NO to Question 4 above, identify which of the scenarios 1-8 above should** the

3rd Party Independent Disclosure be available as prior art against the Claimed Invention of the Inventor?

11

DRAFT

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Scenario 6

Scenario 7

Scenario 8

Should* Be Available as Prior Art Should* Not Be Available as Prior Art

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:a) Identify any other scenarios for an independent intervening disclosure (beyond Scenarios 1-8) that should be considered.

b) Please also include any additional comments or suggestions if you wish to explain your choice for one or more scenarios:

Yes No

a) Should* there be a presumption of re-disclosure for substantiallyidentical content in the intervening disclosure or part thereof?

b) Should* the presumption in a) above be rebuttable, allowing proof of independentdevelopment to show it is prior art?

c) Should* the substantially identity of content in the intervening disclosure requireat least a substantial identify of subject matter and language?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

6. Proposed Principle: Where the content of a third party intervening disclosure or part thereof is substantially identical to the

content of an inventor/Applicant's original public disclosure, a presumption of "re-disclosure" (i.e., no independent third party

development should exist with respect to those parts of the later third party disclosure that are substantially identical.

*

7. Regarding the following Scenarios 9-16 taken from TF Scenarios (TF/7) -- Please assess whether a pre-filing third party

disclosure that is innocently (i.e., without break of obligation or fraud) derived from all or part of the inventor's original public

disclosure should* be available as prior art against the claimed invention:

*

12

DRAFT

Yes No

Scenario 9

Scenario 10

Scenario 11

Scenario 12

Scenario 13

Scenario 14

Scenario 15

Scenario 16

In the text box below:a) Identify any other scenarios (beyond Scenarios 9-16) that should be considered.

b) Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice for one or more scenarios:

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

13

DRAFT

Yes No

a) Should* there be a presumption of re-disclosure for "similar" (not substantially identical") subject matter inthe intervening disclosure or part thereof?

b) If a presumption exists, should* an Examiner still be able to cite the art in a rejection and force applicant toprove derivation?

c) If a presumption exists, should* a third party be able to submit evidence during prosecution or litigation torebut the presumption?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answer:

8. Proposed Principle - Where some parts of the third party disclosure are "substantially identical" to the original disclosure by the

inventor but some are not, the parts of the disclosure that are not substantially identical but describe similar subject matter would be

presumed to be a "re-disclosure" (i.e., derived from the inventor) and not available as prior art.

*

Yes No

a) Should* there be a rebuttable presumption that portions that are not similar are available as prior art?

b) Should* the presumption apply only where the portions that are not similar aret demonstrated to be novel orinventive beyond what was included in the applicant's original public disclosure?

c) Where the added material is novel or inventive beyond the inventor's original disclosure, should* the addedmaterial be prejudicial regardless of whether (i) independently developed or (ii) derived from the graceddisclosure?

d) Is a system based on an assessment of novelty and non-obviousness of added subject matter to a priorpublication of the inventor/Applicant workable as a global best practice?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answer:

9. Proposed Principle: Where some parts of the third party disclosure are "substantially identical" and some parts are not even

"similar" to an inventor/Applicant prior disclosure, the dissimilar portions would be subject to a rebuttable presumption that they are

prior art.

*

14

DRAFT

Link to TF Scenarios, cited by slide # ("TF/#"), which provide different fact patterns involving grace period and prior user

rights.

Link to Glossary of Acronyms and Select Terms used in this survey.

Note: You will need to sign in as an AIPLA member in order to access these documents.

III. SCOPE OF AND RIGHTS TO A HARMONIZED GRACE PERIOD ( cont'd)

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

Yes No

Do you agree with the above proposed "filing as soon as possible" principle?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Please include any additional comments if you wish to explain your response:

10. Proposed Principle - A Harmonized Grace Period Policy should continue to should encourage a policy of " filing as soon as

possible" after publication by maintaining:

a. Risk of a second inventor reading the publication and enhancing/improving the invention and beating the first inventor to the

USPTO.

b. Risk of re-publication that is not traceable to the Applicant's original publication and may become prior art to the Applicant.

c. Risk of Prior User Rights accruing for a third party who independently invents and begins serious and effective preparation to

make the same invention before first inventor/Applicant files .

*

15

DRAFT

Identify other incentives to encourage filing as soon as possible after publication in the text box below. Include additional comments ifyou wish to explain your answer for one or more choices above:

11. Proposed Principle - A Harmonized Grace Period Policy should encourage a "file as soon as possible after publication" policy

by newly implementing (select any you agree with):

a. A financial penalty for each month between publication and filing that increases each month until filing (TF/9).

b. An acceleration of the publication of the application to 18 months after the date of publication. (TF/10)

c. Prior User Rights or some equivalent intervening right for a third party who sees a publication and based on the publicationmakes effective and serious preparation to implement the invention before the Applicant files an application. (TF/11)

d. Other incentives to encourage filing as soon as possible? If this choice is checked, please identify in text box below.

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

12. Proposed Principle: A Harmonized Grace Period Policy should* provide a "safety net" for inadvertent or even intentional

disclosures prior to the filing of an application but should discourage a "publish first" policy (a publish first policy is presently

implemented by the AIA where independent third party publications made after a first publication and prior to filing can be excepted

from prior art under 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b)).

Do you agree with the above proposed principle?

*

Yes

No

16

DRAFT

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

13. Proposed Principle: A Harmonized Grace Period Policy should* provide a "safety net" for inadvertent or even intentional

disclosures prior to the filing of an application and should protect the first party to publish against any subsequent independent

activity of a third party, including third party publication of an independently developed invention, prior to the first party filing an

application (broader than AIA Section 102(b)).

Do you agree with the above proposed principle?

*

Yes

No

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

14. Proposed Principle: A Harmonized Grace Period Policy should* be adopted that strongly discourages applicants from

adopting a publish first policy.

Do you agree or disagree with the above Proposed Principle?

*

Agree

Disagree

17

DRAFT

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

15. Proposed Principle: A Harmonized Grace Period Policy should place the ultimate "burden of proof," as to an entitlement to a

grace period benefit, on a party asserting the presence or absence of a grace period.

Do you agree or disagree with the above Proposed Principle?

*

Agree

Disagree

Agree Disagree

Statement a) above

Statement b) above

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

16. Under the Proposed Principle of Question 15 above, do you agree or disagree with the following statements:

a) The applicant should* bear the initial burden to prove that a prior art public disclosure was derived from applicant (and

thus graced).

b) The burden of proof should* shift to the Examiner or the third party challenger if the applicant makes a prima facie case of

derivation, assume the prima facie case may be made by a presumption of redisclosure if the content is substantially

identical- - as in Proposed Principle in Question 8 above.

*

18

DRAFT

Link to TF Scenarios, cited by slide # ("TF/#"), which provide different fact patterns involving grace period and prior user

rights.

Link to Glossary of Acronyms and Select Terms used in this survey.

Note: You will need to sign in as an AIPLA member in order to access these documents.

IV. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZED GRACE PERIOD POLICY: STATEMENTSUBMISSION REQUIREMENT

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

17. Proposed Principle - The Harmonized Grace Period Policy should incentivize Applicants to disclose known pre-filing

publications/public disclosures ("PFD") to the Offices at the time of filing but no later than 18 months from the filing/priority date, by

requiring submission of a statement that clearly identifies the publications to be graced:

a. So Examiners will know of publications/public disclosures that are graced before examination begins.

b. So Third Parties (" TP") will know the graced status of publications/public disclosures when the application is published. [Note: The

period of risk for a TP who sees the applicant's publication is at least 18 months (the period of confidentiality) and should not be greater

than 30 months, the total of 18 months to publication and the 12 months grace period.

See -TF Scenarios Topic Vl Slides 22-26 ( TF/22-26) - Background Information on Grace Period - Differences Internationally of

Advantage to Applicant vs Periods of Risk for Third Parties

Do you agree or disagree?

*

Agree

Disagree

19

DRAFT

Yes No

a) Should* application's publication be accelerated by up to 12 months, depending on theperiod between PFD and application filing, to reduce risks to TP and provide a basis for betterbalancing interests of TP and applicants (see TF/10)?

**b) Assuming the number of times that there will be graced events prior to the filing of anapplication will be low, are there other practical solutions to reduce risks for TP?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:**If you answered "yes" to (b) please provide suggestions in text box below.

Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

18. Under the Proposed Principle of Question 17 above:*

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Please provide any additional comments to your response above:

19. Proposed Principle - The Harmonized Grace Period Policy should invoke a penalty against Applicants who fail to make a timely

identification to the Office of a PFD.

Do you agree or disagree with this proposed principle?

*

Agree

Disagree

20

DRAFT

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Please provide any additional comments to your response above:

20. With respect to the proposed principle in Question 19 above: Do you agree that the penalty for failing to make a timely

identification to the Office of a PFD should only be administrative, preferably financial, possibly with fees escalating with the

passage of time?

*

Agree

Disagree

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Please provide any additional comments to your response above, especially if you chose b) or c):

21. With respect to the proposed principle in Questions 19 above: In any event, the penalty: (pick one)

*

a) should not involve loss of any grace period benefit during prosecution or litigationunder any circumstances OR

b) should involve loss of grace period benefit if the applicant knows or becomes aware of the publication/public disclosure priorto publication of the patent application but fails to file (i) a statement, and (ii) adquate proof that the publication is by/for/from theinventor/applicant, either intentionally or unintentionally, before publication of the application, OR

c) should involve loss of grace period benefit if the applicant knows or becomes aware of the publication/public disclosure at anytime (i) prior to or (ii) during prosecution but fails to file a statement and adequate proof that the publication is by/for/from theinventor/applicant, either intentionally or unintentionally, unless applicant successfully argues for patentability due to patentabledifferences over the content of the publication.

21

DRAFT

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Please provide any additional comments to your response above:

22. Should* a submission of a statement during prosecution that identifies a pre-filing disclosure be mandatory to grace a pre-filing

disclosure?

*

Yes

No

Please provide any additional suggestions and comments to your response above:

23. Will an administrative financial penalty alone be effective to encourage applicants to submit statements during prosecution that

identify all graced public disclosures?

*

Yes

No

Please provide any additional comments to your response above:

24. Will a requirement for a very high administrative financial penalty, if a grace period with regard to a pre-filing disclosure is claimed

only after the patent issues, be effective to encourage submission of statements during prosecution?

*

Yes

No

22

DRAFT

Please provide any additional comments to your response above:

25. Would an acceptable penalty for failure to file a statement during prosecution be a guarantee of a license to claims of an issued

patent under FRAND-like terms to a third party who can demonstrate that (i) they relied on a pre-filing disclosure that (ii) would

invalidate those claims but for the fact that the pre-filing disclosure (i) was by/for/from the Applicant and (ii) was not identified in a

statement submitted during prosecution?

*

Yes

No

Please provide any additional comments to your response above:

26. Are there any other possible approaches that could ensure that third parties can identify publications/public disclosures as being

graced so that business plans can be pursued safely knowing a publication/public disclosure cannot invalidate relevant claims in a

patent?

*

Yes

No

Please provide any additional comments to your response above.

Are there any other possible approaches that could ensure that third parties can identify publications/public disclosures asbeing graced, so that business plans can be pursued safely knowing a publication/public disclosure cannot invalidaterelevant claims in a patent?

27. With respect to the proposed principle in Question 19 above, if you chose b) or c) as your response to Question 21 above:

Should it still be possible for an applicant to argue patentability over the prior publication (due to cost or strategy) and not

forfeit the right to claim grace period?

*

Yes

No

23

DRAFT

Yes No

Scenario 17

Scenario 18

Scenario 19

Scenario 20

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

28. Regarding the following Scenarios 17-20 from the TF Scenarios Topic IV (TF/13) -- the original disclosure by the

inventor/applicant is all or less than the claimed invention:

** referenced in Questions 32 and 33 below.

In each of Scenarios 17-20 above (TF/13), where the applicant knows of the disclosure prior to the publication of

the applicant, should* the applicant be required to file a statement and be subject to penalties for failure to file a

statement?

*

24

DRAFT

Yes No

Scenario 17

Scenario 18

Scenario 19

Scenario 20

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

29. In each of the Scenarios 17-20 above (TF/13), should* an applicant be required to file a statement if the known

pre-filing disclosure is an innocent (i.e., without breach of legal obligation or fraud) re-disclosure of the

inventor's information by a third party?

*

25

DRAFT

Yes No

a. Would you support such policy?

b. Would a system that required a statement identifying allpre-filing disclosures by/for/from the inventor during thegrace period, regardless of the scope and content of thedisclosure, be a best practice?

c. Would a system that required a statement identifying onlythose pre-filing disclosures by/for/from the inventor duringthe grace period that disclosed the entire invention be a bestpractice?

d. Would a system under c. provide sufficient information tosatisfy the interests of third parties for legal certainty?

e. Should there be at least an administrative (financial)penalty for failure to submit a statement on a timely basis,e.g., at the time of filing an application - later filingsincurring an escalating penalty based on the passage oftime after filing (possibly escalating at the time ofpublication, at first office action, at final office action and atallowance?

f. Should the assertion of grace period for disclosuresidentified in a statement be challengeable by Examiners orthird parties requiring applicants to submit proof of originby/for/from the inventor?

g. Should there be a harmonized system that permits thirdparties to anonymously submit publications and require anapplicant to identify whether they are derived from theapplicant and demonstrate the basis for derivation?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

30. Proposed Policy - In balancing (i) the interests of third parties and Offices for legal certainty and (ii) the burdens on applicants,

the inventor/Applicant should be required to submit a statement identifying all pre-filing disclosures that publicly disclose all or even

part of the claimed invention and are to be graced.*

*Note that such requirement would be separate from the duty of disclosure with regard to prior art under Rule 56

*

26

DRAFT

Yes No

Scenario 17

Scenario 18

Scenario 19

Scenario 20

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

31. **In each of the Scenarios 17 -20 above (TF/13), should* an applicant be required to file a statement?*

Yes No

Scenario17

Scenario 18

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

32. **In each of the Scenarios 17 and 18 above, does it matter if A or B is a conventional feature?*

27

DRAFT

Yes No

Scenario 17

Scenario 18

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

33. **In each of the Scenarios 17 and 18 above, does it matter if A or B is a key feature of the invention?*

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

34. Which one of the following should* the applicant’s be obligated to list as pre-filing disclosures (PFDs), and be

subject to a penalty for not listing at the time of filing?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

*

a) All PFDs by/for/from the applicant/inventor, even if the origin from the applicant/inventor is clear on its face, at therisk of a later penalty if an examiner later rejects because it is relevant.

b) Only PFDs by/for/from the applicant/inventor, the origins of which are not apparent on their face ( i.e., commoninventor and author)

c) All PFDs known to the applicant.

d) Only PFDs that applicant believes may be relevant to the examination of the claimed invention.

28

DRAFT

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

35. Which one of the following should* be the applicant’s obligation to locate and identify as its own pre-filing

disclosures (PFDs)?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

*

a) Applicant should have an obligation of due diligence in monitoring PFDs.

b) Applicant should have an obligation to undertake serious efforts to monitor PFDs.

c) Applicant should have no obligation to monitor for PFDs.

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

36. In which of the following circumstances should* a corporate entity applicant be obligated to list any PFD if

the PFD was known prior to filing of the application? (check one or more)

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

*

a) Disclosure is by a person employed by the corporate entity anywhere in the world, or by an entity controlled by thecorporate entity (wholly owned subsidiary, etc.), or by another entity engaged with it in a joint venture.

b) Disclosure is by a person directly employed by the applicant.

c) Disclosure is by an inventor or the team having made the invention.

d) Disclosure is by the team dealing with the patent application.

29

DRAFT

Please provide any additional comments to your response above, stating why you did or did not select the policy, and,alternative suggestions for addressing the interests of third parties:

37. Which of the following would be acceptable in a Harmonized Grace Period Policy in order to achieve a balance between

the interests of the patent owner and third parties who wish certainty in proceeding with business? (Please check one or

more that would be acceptable.)

*

a) Implement a post grant procedure that would permit a third party to anonymously identify a PFD and request the patent ownerto state within a limited period of time (6 months) whether it is by/for/from the inventor/applicant and demonstrate why it should begraced. If a claim of grace is made and supported by the patent owner, the third party has certainty and can proceed accordinglyto license, litigate, etc. If a claim is not made or is not adequately supported, by the patent owner within the period, shouldlitigation later arise, the third party will be guaranteed at least a license to the patent under FRAND-like terms.

b) Adopt a policy of automatically granting a prior user or similar right to a third party who made serious and effective preparationto use an invention disclosed in applicant's PFD, even if such preparation begins after the effective filing date of applicant'sapplication, where the applicant in bad faith fails to submit a statement to the Office identifying applicant's PFD during prosecution(TF/14).

c) Other (please list in comment field below.

30

DRAFT

End of Part A of Survey

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

38. Thank you very much for your responses today. Please provide any additional thoughts you may have,or suggestions on how we may improve Part A of this survey.

This is the end of Part A of the Survey. Thank you for your time!

Please move on to complete both Part B and Part C !! (Pleaseremember your Respondent ID)

Link to Part B

Link to Part C

31

DRAFT

Introduction:First, AIPLA would like to thank you in advance for taking the time to provide us with your feedbackon this important topic.Please set aside at least one hour to respond to Part A of this survey, and one hour to respond toParts B and C combined. Please feel free to review the reference documents linked below in advance of starting the survey.These reference documents are described in Section I. Background and referred throughout thesurvey. We look forward to receiving your feedback. - The Harmonization Task Force Reference Documents

Link to TF Scenarios, cited by slide # ("TF/#"), which provide different fact patterns involving graceperiod and prior user rights.Link to Glossary of Acronyms and Select Terms used in this survey.Note: You will need to sign in as an AIPLA member in order to access this document. Table of Contents: Section I. BACKGROUND A. AIPLA's Role in Harmonization Initiatives B. AIPLA's Harmonization Task Force Goals C. Consideration of Real World Factors and Grace Period PolicySection II. PRACTICAL REAL WORLD FACTORSSection III. BASIC PRINCIPLES of a HARMONIZED GRACE PERIOD POLICY: Scope and Rights to Grace Period (found in Part A of the Survey)Section IV. BASIC PRINCIPLES of a HARMONIZED GRACE PERIOD POLICY: Statement Submission Requirements (found in Part A of the Survey)

Introduction, Reference Documents and Table of Contents

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

1

DRAFT

Section V. BASIC PRINCIPLES of the WORKSTREAM for a HARMONIZED PRIOR USER RIGHTSPOLICY (HPURP) (Part B of the survey)Tell Us About Your Practice (Part C of the survey) NOTE: Based upon feedback received from Beta testing participants, we have broken down thesurvey into three parts, so that each part may be taken at different times (to ease the timecommitment required in one sitting). It is imperative that you complete all three parts of the survey,not only so that you are aware of all the issues being discussed during the harmonizationdiscussions, but also to ensure the Harmonization Task Force understands your perspectives fullybased upon your responses in all 3 parts.

2

DRAFT

International harmonization of substantive patent law has been a goal for more than 30 years but has eluded

realization due to fundamental disagreement among stakeholders with regard to at least four key issues, including the

existence and scope of a grace period, the existence and scope of prior user rights, the treatment of conflicting applications,

and the publication of all applications at 18 months. With the passage of the America Invents Act in 2011, moving the U.S. on

its own initiative from a first to invent to a first to file system, an international effort was begun to identify underlying

attitudes, practical problems, and best practices with regard to these four issues. A group of interested governments formed

the Tegernsee group and conducted a survey of their constituencies with respect to these issues to determine if there was a

basis for harmonization; the results were encouraging and were published in the Tegernsee Report in 2014 . The task of

following-up with proposals for harmonization was given to the Group B+, a group of WIPO member industrialized countries,

which has engaged in harmonization discussions within separate workstreams on various issues, including grace period,

prior user rights and conflicting applications.

A. AIPLA's Role in Harmonization Initiatives

Industry also has been an active participant in the substantive patent law harmonization discussions, particularly

through the Industry Trilateral activities involving organizations from Europe (BusinessEurope), Japan (JIPA) and the United

States (AIPLA and IPO). Over the past 30 years, AIPLA has supported harmonization in its Board Resolutions and has

actively participated in discussions among industry and with both the Trilateral Offices and the Group B+. The Tegernsee

Report and the new Group B+ initiative, along with the unprecedented view of the governments that industry should lead the

harmonization process, have led to an intensification of that participation.

The task for governments and industry in these harmonization discussions is challenging, as there are fundamental

principles regarding the several issues under discussion that reveal a direct conflict among existing laws and practices

throughout the world. Europe has no grace period, while the grace period in the US is quite broad; the grace period in Japan

is narrower and accompanied by restrictions, such as a strict condition requiring a declaration of intent to claim grace period

at the time of filing. Prior user rights in the U.S. are narrow, arising only for actual commercial activity more than one year

prior to a filing date, while arising in Europe and Japan for preparatory activity prior to a filing or priority date. Where there

are conflicting applications, Europe has a "self-collision" policy, while the U.S. and Japan have anti-self collision policies.

I. BACKGROUND

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

3

DRAFT

Achieving harmonization under those circumstances will require all participants to abandon some of their existing

policies in an effort to achieve a compromise . Ideally the result will be a set of truly "best practices" that will be universally

applicable, easily implemented, and well balanced so that they serve the interests of innovators, both large and small, third

parties, and the public at large. To this end, both the governments and industry recognize that "best practices" must be

examined through a number of practical scenarios that can test the validity of assumptions made and the value of the

outcomes that are achieved.

B. AIPLA's Harmonization Task Force Goals

AIPLA has a Harmonization Task Force that represents AIPLA in the international discussions and at this time seeks to

obtain input from select AIPLA Committees on the practical impact of current proposals for the grace period and related

prior user rights policies.

The Task Force seeks AIPLA Committee input on a number of proposed principles explored in the Group B+

Workstream on Grace Period and in the Group B+ Workstream on Prior User Rights (see documents available at

https://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/harmonisation/group-b-plus.html). The Task Force also seeks input on a set of

TASK FORCE SCENARIOS (TF Scenarios) that are intended to test the proposed principles with greater granularity. The TF

Scenarios are presented as a PowerPoint deck with an illustrated timeline for each of four issues and charts of variable fact

patterns for each issue that requires your input. The four issues concern:

(1) third party re-disclosure of an original graced publication of an applicant,

(2) third party independent pre filing disclosure after an original graced publication of an applicant,

(3) requirement for a statement of pre-filing publication by an applicant, and

(4) the creation of prior user rights for third parties who begin serious and effective implementation of an

invention before an applicant's filing.

I. BACKGROUND (continued)

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

4

DRAFT

For each of the proposed principles and scenarios described in the quesitons of this survey, your answers

should not be constrained by current U.S. law, as the purpose of this consultation is to obtain a comprehensive statement

from each Committee on:

(1) the impact of each proposed principles on innovators and third parties on what you believe to be best

practices for the future, and

(2) the preferred balanced result from an application of those best practices to a variety of fact patterns as

presented in the scenarios.

AIPLA's Harmonization Task Force will use your input to advise the Board of Directors with respect to the key

issues that are being addressed in international discussions and ultimately obtain their guidance as to the positions that

AIPLA should advocate. Therefore, please provide your reasoning and any additional comments in the text boxes within

each questions - - the perspectives you share will be instructive context for your responses

I. BACKGROUND (continued)

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

5

DRAFT

C. Consideration of Real World Factors and Grace Period Policy

To aid in your consideration of the recommendations made by the Group B+ Workstream on Grace Period and by the

Group B+ Workstream on Prior User Rights and the issues illustrated by the set of TF Scenarios, there are three Sections

that follow and provide useful information that has been gleaned from the GROUP B+ WORKSTREAM REPORTS and AIPLA

Harmonization Task Force consultations with other representatives of industry:

Section II identifies some real-world factors that should be considered in determining a policy that realistically could

be first implemented in the next 10 years and would be expected to last for 20 or more years thereafter.

Sections III and IV, respectively, identify certain proposed principles and key issues that arise from the AIPLA

Harmonization Task Force's deliberations concerning grace period and on prior user rights and seek your input.

Accompanying the proposed principles and key issues is a slide deck that contains several TF Scenarios that provide an

illustration of fact patterns and background information relevant to those proposed principles and issues. The scenarios

relevant to the proposed principles and issues are cited by slide number (e.g., TF/3 refers to slide number 3). The proposed

principles identified in Sections III and IV are accompanied by questions that you should address with answers and

reasoning.

This exercise is detailed and complex, but your input by no later than ___________ is requested. This date is critical

because of international meetings that are scheduled for______________.

I. BACKGROUND (continued)

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

6

DRAFT

A. The number of graced events that will require an affirmative exercise of gracing rights to overcome an

unpatentability/invalidity challenge, especially if an effective "file first" policy is adopted, is estimated to be within a range of

4%-6% of filed applications.

1. The Tegernsee Survey showed grace period was asserted within a range of 4-6% of filed Korean

applications when Korea liberalized its grace period policy a few years ago.

2. With an effective "file first" policy, the actual percentage could be at the lower end of the range.

B. The likely scope of graced events that cannot be attributed to an inventor or applicant of a pending application

or issued patent is even smaller:

1. Given that a common author or common applicant name is likely to exist.

2. Given that the grace period policy is not likely to be implemented for 10 years and that technology will

greatly enhance the ability to identify a publication/public disclosure with an inventor or Applicant (comparative technologies

to detect plagiarism already exist today).

C. The scope and types of pre-filing disclosures that would be graced as a matter of law, given a broad category of

novelty-destroying activities that may occur ("otherwise available to the public" under the AIA) is likely to be large because:

1. All NON- CONFIDENTIAL disclosures of ALL or ANY PART of an invention during the grace period may need

to be graced;

2. These include publications, public announcements (especially if captured on video), comments at meetings

and even discussions at lunch or dinner; and

3. These include even "safe" disclosures of less than the claimed invention (e.g., A or AB or AD, where the

invention of concern is ABC).

II. PRACTICAL REAL WORLD FACTORS

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

7

DRAFT

A requirement to submit a statement for the entire spectrum of pre-filing disclosures that would be graced as a matter

of law would involve significant expense and a significant risk of expense for applicants, especially large volume filers.

D. Under the law applied by most Patent Offices, Third Parties can disclose an alleged prior art publication or

public disclosure to the Office anonymously and force the Applicant to either claim benefit of a grace period (demonstrating

the prior art was by/for/from the Applicant or inventor) or amend claims to overcome the prior art. This provides some

certainty for the Third Party, but the Third Party otherwise may not be able to participate in the prosecution.

E. Once a patent is issued because the Examiner never knew of the graced publication/public disclosure, under

current law, the Third Party who knows of or finds the publication/public disclosure, cannot determine if it is by/for/from the

Applicant or inventor (notwithstanding sophisticated investigative techniques) and wants certainty so a new business can be

started, can: (1) take a license, if available, (2) institute a post grant proceeding [ex parte reexamination, opposition or the

like] or (3) institute a declaratory judgment action. All of these are expensive and most involve disclosure of the Third Party

identity and may simply result in the patent owner overcoming the reference by claiming the grace period.

F. Harmonized Grace Period and PUR Policies should provide a balance of interests and burdens among

Applicants, Third Parties and Offices.

G. Because of significant differences between "discovery permitted" and "discovery prohibited" countries,

harmonized Grace Period and PUR Policies should minimize reliance on subjective factors , such as knowledge or intent,

since there are significant and discriminatory differences among legal systems with regard to the availability of discovery of

such factors.

H. Harmonized Grace Period and PUR Policies should be simple and uniformly implemented on a global basis.

II. PRACTICAL REAL WORLD FACTORS (continued)

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

8

DRAFT

Link to TF Scenarios, cited by slide # ("TF/#"), which provide different fact patterns involving grace period and prior user

rights.

Link to Glossary of Acronyms and Select Terms used in this survey.

Note: You will need to sign in as an AIPLA member in order to access these documents.

III. BASIC PRINCIPLES of HARMONIZED GRACE PERIOD: SCOPE OF AND RIGHTS TOA GRACE PERIOD POLICY

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

1. Please assign yourself a Respondent ID for the Part B and Part C of your survey (we suggest something more than 6 characters

long, with numbers and letters, so that there is a higher probably that it is unique to you).

Please keep this for your records - -

You need have to input your Respondent ID in Part B and Part C, so that we could identify you as the respondent of the three parts :

*

9

DRAFT

Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your answer or suggest changes:

2. Proposed Principle - Gracing covers:

a. All publications/public disclosures.

b. Made by/for/from the inventor/Applicant, including re-disclosures by third parties.

c. Within a period of [6 or 12 months] prior to filing of a first patent application.

Note - Assume 12 months from filing or priority date as it appears to be the preferred duration for a Harmonized

Grace Period Policy

Do you agree with the above proposed principle?

*

Yes

No

Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your answer or suggest changes:

3. Proposed Principle: Gracing of a publication/public disclosure is provided as a matter of law. (TF/10)

Do you agree with the above proposed principle?

*

Yes

No

10

DRAFT

Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your response:

4. Proposed Principle - Gracing does not cover any "intervening disclosure" of independently developed subject matter by a third

party (i.e., developed without access to the information of the inventor/Applicant), that is made after an inventor/Applicant's public

disclosure of all or part of an invention, but before inventor/Applicant's filing on the invention .

Do you agree with the above proposed principle?

*

Yes

No

Should* Be Available as Prior Art Should* Not Be Available as Prior Art

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

5. If you answered NO to Question 4 above, consider the following scenarios from the TF Scenarios (TF/5) - - Where there is a

proven independent third party "intervening disclosure" of all or part of the inventor’s original public disclosure within the grace period,

please state for each of the following scenarios whether the independent intervening disclosure should be available as prior art and not

prevented from being prior art by the inventor's earlier disclosure, as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to

achieve global harmonization.

In other words: If you answered NO to Question 4 above, identify which of the scenarios 1-8 above should** the

3rd Party Independent Disclosure be available as prior art against the Claimed Invention of the Inventor?

11

DRAFT

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Scenario 6

Scenario 7

Scenario 8

Should* Be Available as Prior Art Should* Not Be Available as Prior Art

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:a) Identify any other scenarios for an independent intervening disclosure (beyond Scenarios 1-8) that should be considered.

b) Please also include any additional comments or suggestions if you wish to explain your choice for one or more scenarios:

Yes No

a) Should* there be a presumption of re-disclosure for substantiallyidentical content in the intervening disclosure or part thereof?

b) Should* the presumption in a) above be rebuttable, allowing proof of independentdevelopment to show it is prior art?

c) Should* the substantially identity of content in the intervening disclosure requireat least a substantial identify of subject matter and language?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

6. Proposed Principle: Where the content of a third party intervening disclosure or part thereof is substantially identical to the

content of an inventor/Applicant's original public disclosure, a presumption of "re-disclosure" (i.e., no independent third party

development should exist with respect to those parts of the later third party disclosure that are substantially identical.

*

7. Regarding the following Scenarios 9-16 taken from TF Scenarios (TF/7) -- Please assess whether a pre-filing third party

disclosure that is innocently (i.e., without break of obligation or fraud) derived from all or part of the inventor's original public

disclosure should* be available as prior art against the claimed invention:

*

12

DRAFT

Yes No

Scenario 9

Scenario 10

Scenario 11

Scenario 12

Scenario 13

Scenario 14

Scenario 15

Scenario 16

In the text box below:a) Identify any other scenarios (beyond Scenarios 9-16) that should be considered.

b) Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice for one or more scenarios:

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

13

DRAFT

Yes No

a) Should* there be a presumption of re-disclosure for "similar" (not substantially identical") subject matter inthe intervening disclosure or part thereof?

b) If a presumption exists, should* an Examiner still be able to cite the art in a rejection and force applicant toprove derivation?

c) If a presumption exists, should* a third party be able to submit evidence during prosecution or litigation torebut the presumption?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answer:

8. Proposed Principle - Where some parts of the third party disclosure are "substantially identical" to the original disclosure by the

inventor but some are not, the parts of the disclosure that are not substantially identical but describe similar subject matter would be

presumed to be a "re-disclosure" (i.e., derived from the inventor) and not available as prior art.

*

Yes No

a) Should* there be a rebuttable presumption that portions that are not similar are available as prior art?

b) Should* the presumption apply only where the portions that are not similar aret demonstrated to be novel orinventive beyond what was included in the applicant's original public disclosure?

c) Where the added material is novel or inventive beyond the inventor's original disclosure, should* the addedmaterial be prejudicial regardless of whether (i) independently developed or (ii) derived from the graceddisclosure?

d) Is a system based on an assessment of novelty and non-obviousness of added subject matter to a priorpublication of the inventor/Applicant workable as a global best practice?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answer:

9. Proposed Principle: Where some parts of the third party disclosure are "substantially identical" and some parts are not even

"similar" to an inventor/Applicant prior disclosure, the dissimilar portions would be subject to a rebuttable presumption that they are

prior art.

*

14

DRAFT

Link to TF Scenarios, cited by slide # ("TF/#"), which provide different fact patterns involving grace period and prior user

rights.

Link to Glossary of Acronyms and Select Terms used in this survey.

Note: You will need to sign in as an AIPLA member in order to access these documents.

III. SCOPE OF AND RIGHTS TO A HARMONIZED GRACE PERIOD ( cont'd)

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

Yes No

Do you agree with the above proposed "filing as soon as possible" principle?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Please include any additional comments if you wish to explain your response:

10. Proposed Principle - A Harmonized Grace Period Policy should continue to should encourage a policy of " filing as soon as

possible" after publication by maintaining:

a. Risk of a second inventor reading the publication and enhancing/improving the invention and beating the first inventor to the

USPTO.

b. Risk of re-publication that is not traceable to the Applicant's original publication and may become prior art to the Applicant.

c. Risk of Prior User Rights accruing for a third party who independently invents and begins serious and effective preparation to

make the same invention before first inventor/Applicant files .

*

15

DRAFT

Identify other incentives to encourage filing as soon as possible after publication in the text box below. Include additional comments ifyou wish to explain your answer for one or more choices above:

11. Proposed Principle - A Harmonized Grace Period Policy should encourage a "file as soon as possible after publication" policy

by newly implementing (select any you agree with):

a. A financial penalty for each month between publication and filing that increases each month until filing (TF/9).

b. An acceleration of the publication of the application to 18 months after the date of publication. (TF/10)

c. Prior User Rights or some equivalent intervening right for a third party who sees a publication and based on the publicationmakes effective and serious preparation to implement the invention before the Applicant files an application. (TF/11)

d. Other incentives to encourage filing as soon as possible? If this choice is checked, please identify in text box below.

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

12. Proposed Principle: A Harmonized Grace Period Policy should* provide a "safety net" for inadvertent or even intentional

disclosures prior to the filing of an application but should discourage a "publish first" policy (a publish first policy is presently

implemented by the AIA where independent third party publications made after a first publication and prior to filing can be excepted

from prior art under 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b)).

Do you agree with the above proposed principle?

*

Yes

No

16

DRAFT

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

13. Proposed Principle: A Harmonized Grace Period Policy should* provide a "safety net" for inadvertent or even intentional

disclosures prior to the filing of an application and should protect the first party to publish against any subsequent independent

activity of a third party, including third party publication of an independently developed invention, prior to the first party filing an

application (broader than AIA Section 102(b)).

Do you agree with the above proposed principle?

*

Yes

No

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

14. Proposed Principle: A Harmonized Grace Period Policy should* be adopted that strongly discourages applicants from

adopting a publish first policy.

Do you agree or disagree with the above Proposed Principle?

*

Agree

Disagree

17

DRAFT

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

15. Proposed Principle: A Harmonized Grace Period Policy should place the ultimate "burden of proof," as to an entitlement to a

grace period benefit, on a party asserting the presence or absence of a grace period.

Do you agree or disagree with the above Proposed Principle?

*

Agree

Disagree

Agree Disagree

Statement a) above

Statement b) above

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

16. Under the Proposed Principle of Question 15 above, do you agree or disagree with the following statements:

a) The applicant should* bear the initial burden to prove that a prior art public disclosure was derived from applicant (and

thus graced).

b) The burden of proof should* shift to the Examiner or the third party challenger if the applicant makes a prima facie case of

derivation, assume the prima facie case may be made by a presumption of redisclosure if the content is substantially

identical- - as in Proposed Principle in Question 8 above.

*

18

DRAFT

Link to TF Scenarios, cited by slide # ("TF/#"), which provide different fact patterns involving grace period and prior user

rights.

Link to Glossary of Acronyms and Select Terms used in this survey.

Note: You will need to sign in as an AIPLA member in order to access these documents.

IV. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE HARMONIZED GRACE PERIOD POLICY: STATEMENTSUBMISSION REQUIREMENT

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

17. Proposed Principle - The Harmonized Grace Period Policy should incentivize Applicants to disclose known pre-filing

publications/public disclosures ("PFD") to the Offices at the time of filing but no later than 18 months from the filing/priority date, by

requiring submission of a statement that clearly identifies the publications to be graced:

a. So Examiners will know of publications/public disclosures that are graced before examination begins.

b. So Third Parties (" TP") will know the graced status of publications/public disclosures when the application is published. [Note: The

period of risk for a TP who sees the applicant's publication is at least 18 months (the period of confidentiality) and should not be greater

than 30 months, the total of 18 months to publication and the 12 months grace period.

See -TF Scenarios Topic Vl Slides 22-26 ( TF/22-26) - Background Information on Grace Period - Differences Internationally of

Advantage to Applicant vs Periods of Risk for Third Parties

Do you agree or disagree?

*

Agree

Disagree

19

DRAFT

Yes No

a) Should* application's publication be accelerated by up to 12 months, depending on theperiod between PFD and application filing, to reduce risks to TP and provide a basis for betterbalancing interests of TP and applicants (see TF/10)?

**b) Assuming the number of times that there will be graced events prior to the filing of anapplication will be low, are there other practical solutions to reduce risks for TP?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

In the text box below:**If you answered "yes" to (b) please provide suggestions in text box below.

Please also include any additional comments if you wish to explain your choice:

18. Under the Proposed Principle of Question 17 above:*

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Please provide any additional comments to your response above:

19. Proposed Principle - The Harmonized Grace Period Policy should invoke a penalty against Applicants who fail to make a timely

identification to the Office of a PFD.

Do you agree or disagree with this proposed principle?

*

Agree

Disagree

20

DRAFT

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Please provide any additional comments to your response above:

20. With respect to the proposed principle in Question 19 above: Do you agree that the penalty for failing to make a timely

identification to the Office of a PFD should only be administrative, preferably financial, possibly with fees escalating with the

passage of time?

*

Agree

Disagree

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Please provide any additional comments to your response above, especially if you chose b) or c):

21. With respect to the proposed principle in Questions 19 above: In any event, the penalty: (pick one)

*

a) should not involve loss of any grace period benefit during prosecution or litigationunder any circumstances OR

b) should involve loss of grace period benefit if the applicant knows or becomes aware of the publication/public disclosure priorto publication of the patent application but fails to file (i) a statement, and (ii) adquate proof that the publication is by/for/from theinventor/applicant, either intentionally or unintentionally, before publication of the application, OR

c) should involve loss of grace period benefit if the applicant knows or becomes aware of the publication/public disclosure at anytime (i) prior to or (ii) during prosecution but fails to file a statement and adequate proof that the publication is by/for/from theinventor/applicant, either intentionally or unintentionally, unless applicant successfully argues for patentability due to patentabledifferences over the content of the publication.

21

DRAFT

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Please provide any additional comments to your response above:

22. Should* a submission of a statement during prosecution that identifies a pre-filing disclosure be mandatory to grace a pre-filing

disclosure?

*

Yes

No

Please provide any additional suggestions and comments to your response above:

23. Will an administrative financial penalty alone be effective to encourage applicants to submit statements during prosecution that

identify all graced public disclosures?

*

Yes

No

Please provide any additional comments to your response above:

24. Will a requirement for a very high administrative financial penalty, if a grace period with regard to a pre-filing disclosure is claimed

only after the patent issues, be effective to encourage submission of statements during prosecution?

*

Yes

No

22

DRAFT

Please provide any additional comments to your response above:

25. Would an acceptable penalty for failure to file a statement during prosecution be a guarantee of a license to claims of an issued

patent under FRAND-like terms to a third party who can demonstrate that (i) they relied on a pre-filing disclosure that (ii) would

invalidate those claims but for the fact that the pre-filing disclosure (i) was by/for/from the Applicant and (ii) was not identified in a

statement submitted during prosecution?

*

Yes

No

Please provide any additional comments to your response above:

26. Are there any other possible approaches that could ensure that third parties can identify publications/public disclosures as being

graced so that business plans can be pursued safely knowing a publication/public disclosure cannot invalidate relevant claims in a

patent?

*

Yes

No

Please provide any additional comments to your response above.

Are there any other possible approaches that could ensure that third parties can identify publications/public disclosures asbeing graced, so that business plans can be pursued safely knowing a publication/public disclosure cannot invalidaterelevant claims in a patent?

27. With respect to the proposed principle in Question 19 above, if you chose b) or c) as your response to Question 21 above:

Should it still be possible for an applicant to argue patentability over the prior publication (due to cost or strategy) and not

forfeit the right to claim grace period?

*

Yes

No

23

DRAFT

Yes No

Scenario 17

Scenario 18

Scenario 19

Scenario 20

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

28. Regarding the following Scenarios 17-20 from the TF Scenarios Topic IV (TF/13) -- the original disclosure by the

inventor/applicant is all or less than the claimed invention:

** referenced in Questions 32 and 33 below.

In each of Scenarios 17-20 above (TF/13), where the applicant knows of the disclosure prior to the publication of

the applicant, should* the applicant be required to file a statement and be subject to penalties for failure to file a

statement?

*

24

DRAFT

Yes No

Scenario 17

Scenario 18

Scenario 19

Scenario 20

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

29. In each of the Scenarios 17-20 above (TF/13), should* an applicant be required to file a statement if the known

pre-filing disclosure is an innocent (i.e., without breach of legal obligation or fraud) re-disclosure of the

inventor's information by a third party?

*

25

DRAFT

Yes No

a. Would you support such policy?

b. Would a system that required a statement identifying allpre-filing disclosures by/for/from the inventor during thegrace period, regardless of the scope and content of thedisclosure, be a best practice?

c. Would a system that required a statement identifying onlythose pre-filing disclosures by/for/from the inventor duringthe grace period that disclosed the entire invention be a bestpractice?

d. Would a system under c. provide sufficient information tosatisfy the interests of third parties for legal certainty?

e. Should there be at least an administrative (financial)penalty for failure to submit a statement on a timely basis,e.g., at the time of filing an application - later filingsincurring an escalating penalty based on the passage oftime after filing (possibly escalating at the time ofpublication, at first office action, at final office action and atallowance?

f. Should the assertion of grace period for disclosuresidentified in a statement be challengeable by Examiners orthird parties requiring applicants to submit proof of originby/for/from the inventor?

g. Should there be a harmonized system that permits thirdparties to anonymously submit publications and require anapplicant to identify whether they are derived from theapplicant and demonstrate the basis for derivation?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

30. Proposed Policy - In balancing (i) the interests of third parties and Offices for legal certainty and (ii) the burdens on applicants,

the inventor/Applicant should be required to submit a statement identifying all pre-filing disclosures that publicly disclose all or even

part of the claimed invention and are to be graced.*

*Note that such requirement would be separate from the duty of disclosure with regard to prior art under Rule 56

*

26

DRAFT

Yes No

Scenario 17

Scenario 18

Scenario 19

Scenario 20

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

31. **In each of the Scenarios 17 -20 above (TF/13), should* an applicant be required to file a statement?*

Yes No

Scenario17

Scenario 18

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

32. **In each of the Scenarios 17 and 18 above, does it matter if A or B is a conventional feature?*

27

DRAFT

Yes No

Scenario 17

Scenario 18

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

33. **In each of the Scenarios 17 and 18 above, does it matter if A or B is a key feature of the invention?*

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

34. Which one of the following should* the applicant’s be obligated to list as pre-filing disclosures (PFDs), and be

subject to a penalty for not listing at the time of filing?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

*

a) All PFDs by/for/from the applicant/inventor, even if the origin from the applicant/inventor is clear on its face, at therisk of a later penalty if an examiner later rejects because it is relevant.

b) Only PFDs by/for/from the applicant/inventor, the origins of which are not apparent on their face ( i.e., commoninventor and author)

c) All PFDs known to the applicant.

d) Only PFDs that applicant believes may be relevant to the examination of the claimed invention.

28

DRAFT

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

35. Which one of the following should* be the applicant’s obligation to locate and identify as its own pre-filing

disclosures (PFDs)?

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

*

a) Applicant should have an obligation of due diligence in monitoring PFDs.

b) Applicant should have an obligation to undertake serious efforts to monitor PFDs.

c) Applicant should have no obligation to monitor for PFDs.

Additional comments if you wish to explain your answers above:

36. In which of the following circumstances should* a corporate entity applicant be obligated to list any PFD if

the PFD was known prior to filing of the application? (check one or more)

*(as a best practice balance of applicant and third party interests to achieve global harmonization)

*

a) Disclosure is by a person employed by the corporate entity anywhere in the world, or by an entity controlled by thecorporate entity (wholly owned subsidiary, etc.), or by another entity engaged with it in a joint venture.

b) Disclosure is by a person directly employed by the applicant.

c) Disclosure is by an inventor or the team having made the invention.

d) Disclosure is by the team dealing with the patent application.

29

DRAFT

Please provide any additional comments to your response above, stating why you did or did not select the policy, and,alternative suggestions for addressing the interests of third parties:

37. Which of the following would be acceptable in a Harmonized Grace Period Policy in order to achieve a balance between

the interests of the patent owner and third parties who wish certainty in proceeding with business?*

a) Implement a post grant procedure that would permit a third party to anonymously identify a PFD and request the patent ownerto state within a limited period of time (6 months) whether it is by/for/from the inventor/applicant and demonstrate why it should begraced. If a claim of grace is made and supported by the patent owner, the third party has certainty and can proceed accordinglyto license, litigate, etc. If a claim is not made or is not adequately supported, by the patent owner within the period, shouldlitigation later arise, the third party will be guaranteed at least a license to the patent under FRAND-like terms.

b) Adopt a policy of automatically granting a prior user or similar right to a third party who made serious and effective preparationto use an invention disclosed in applicant's PFD, even if such preparation begins after the effective filing date of applicant'sapplication, where the applicant in bad faith fails to submit a statement to the Office identifying applicant's PFD during prosecution(TF/14).

c) Other (please list in comment field below.

30

DRAFT

End of Part A of Survey

Part A DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

38. Thank you very much for your responses today. Please provide any additional thoughts you may have,or suggestions on how we may improve Part A of this survey.

This is the end of Part A of the Survey. Thank you for your time!

Please move on to complete both Part B and Part C !! (Pleaseremember your Respondent ID)

Link to Part B

Link to Part C

31

DRAFT

Introduction:First, AIPLA would like to thank you in advance for taking the time to provide us with your feedbackon this important topic.Please set aside at least one hour to respond to this survey. Please feel free to review the reference documents linked below in advance of starting the survey.These reference documents are described in Section I. Background and referred throughout thesurvey. We look forward to receiving your feedback.

- The Harmonization Task Force

Table of Contents: Section I. BACKGROUND A. AIPLA's Role in Harmonization Initiatives B. AIPLA's Harmonization Task Force Goals C. Consideration of Real World Factors and Grace Period PolicySection II. PRACTICAL REAL WORLD FACTORSSection III. BASIC PRINCIPLES of a HARMONIZED GRACE PERIOD POLICY: Scope and Rights to Grace Period (found in Part A of the Survey) Section IV. BASIC PRINCIPLES of a HARMONIZED GRACE PERIOD POLICY: Statement Submission Requirements (found in Part A of the Survey) Section V. BASIC PRINCIPLES of the WORKSTREAM for a HARMONIZED PRIOR USER RIGHTSPOLICY (HPURP) (Part B of the Survey)Tell Us About Your Practice (found in this part, Part C of the Survey) NOTE: Based upon feedback received from Beta testing participants, we have broken down thesurvey into three parts, so that each part may be taken at different times (to ease the timecommitment required in one sitting). It is imperative that you complete all three parts of the survey,not only so that you are aware of all the issues being discussed during the harmonization

Introduction, Reference Documents and Table of Contents

Part C DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

1

DRAFT

discussions, but also to ensure that the Harmonization Task Force understand your perspectivesfully based upon your responses in all 3 parts.

2

DRAFT

One of the advantages that AIPLA brings in promoting a healthy patent system in a global economy is our diverse

membership of individual IP professionals from a diverse range of technology and industry sectors, with both in-house and

outside counsel perspectives, located around the world. Our goal with this survey includes obtaining feedback from the full

range of our membership.

This survey is being initially circulated to the Harmonization Task Force, next to the following "Related Committees" of

AIPLA:

• AIPPI-US

• Corporate Practice

• Patent Law

• International and Foreign Law

• Patent Relations with USPTO

• Patent Agents

In this section of the survey, we would like to confirm that the survey respondents in fact reflect the diverse perspectives of

our membership.

Please Tell Us About Your Practice

Part C DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

1. Please provide your Respondent ID, which you assigned yourself in Part A of the Survey:*

3

DRAFT

Another AIPLA Committee (please specify)

2. I am currently a member of (check all that apply):*

AIPLA Harmonization Task Force

AIPLA International & Foreign Law Committee

AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee

AIPLA Patent Relations with the USPTO Committee

AIPLA Patent Agents Committee

AIPPI US

Other (please specify)

3. I hold the following patent registration status before one or more Patent Office(s) (check all that apply):*

registered U.S. patent agent

registered U.S. patent attorney

registered patent agent or patent attorney outside of the U.S.

unregistered IP professional based in the U.S

unregistered IP professional based outside the U.S

Other (please specify)

4. I am currently*

a solo practitioner

in private law firm

inhouse of a large corporation

inhouse of a small enterprise

inhouse of a start-up company

inhouse of a university

employed in the Patent Office

employed in Government, other than the Patent Office

4

DRAFT

Other (please specify)

5. My past experience as a patent practitioner included (check all that apply)*

a solo practitioner

in private law firm

in-house of a large corporation (>500 total employees)

in-house of a small or medium enterprise (<500 total employees)

in-house of a start-up company

in-house of a university

employed in the Patent Office

employed in Government, other than the Patent Office

6. I have been in practice in the patent field for:*

less than 5 years

5-10 years

10-15 years

15-25 years

greater than 25 years

5

DRAFT

Question for law firm practitioner:

Please Tell Us About Your Practice (continued)

Part C DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

7. My current title/position/responsibility in my law firm is*

Partner/Shareholder (or equivalent)

Associate/ Non-equity Partner (or equivalent)

Of Counsel (or equivalent)

Patent Agent or Technology Consultant (or equivalent)

Other (please specify)

6

DRAFT

Question for corporate, small enterprise, university or start-up in-house staff:

Please Tell Us About Your Practice (continued)

Part C DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

8. My current in-house title/position/responsibility is*

Head of IP Department (for entire corporation or a division)

Mid-level management in IP Department

Individual Contributor in IP Department

Head of Corporate Legal

Mid-level management in Corporate Legal (not IP)

Individual Contributor of Corporate Legal (not IP)

Other (please specify)

7

DRAFT

Question for staff in PTO:

Please Tell Us About Your Practice (continued)

Part C DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

9. My current title/position/area of responsibility at the Patent Office is:*

an Examiner (up to and including Supervising Primary Examiner)

in Administration, Management, or Solicitor's Office

Other (please specify)

8

DRAFT

Question for staff in government other than the Patent Office:

Please Tell Us About Your Practice (continued)

Part C DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

10. My current Government (other than Patent Office) title/position/area of responsibility include (check allthat apply):*

domestic policy

domestic regulatory reform

international harmonization

trade

technology

Other (please specify)

9

DRAFT

Question for Private Practitioners

Please Tell Us About Your Practice (continued)

Part C DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

MultinationalCorporation(s)

Start-upcompany/companies

Small Enterprise(s)

University/Universities

Individual inventor(s)

Other (please specifybelow)

11. My approximate client portfolio make up are as follows (please enter a number, to reflect approximate%):*

12. If you indicated "Other" in the question above, please specify here.

10

DRAFT

These questions focus on you primary clients' research and business activities:

Please Tell Us About Your Practice (continued)

Part C DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

Biotechnology

Chemical

Computer Hardware

Computer Software

Electrical

Mechanical

Medical/Health Care

Pharmaceutical

Other (please specify inQuestion 40 below)

13. The primary technology area(s) of the patent portfolio held by myclients/company/university/government agency is as follows (please enter a number, to reflect approximate%):

*

14. If you selected "Other" in question above, please specify here.

11

DRAFT

United States

North America

Central or South America

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Southeast Asia

China

Japan

Other (please specify inQuestion 42 below)

My client(s) does/do NOTengage in research anddevelopment activities

15. My client's primary research and development activities occur in the following geographicalregions (please enter a number, to reflect approximate %):*

16. If you selected "Other" in question above, please specify here.

12

DRAFT

United States

North America

Central or South America

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Southeast Asia

China

Japan

Other (please specify inQuestion 44 below)

My client(s) does/do NOTengage in sales andmarketing activities

17. My client's primary sales and marketing activities occur in the following geographical regions (pleaseenter a number, to reflect approximate %):*

18. If you selected "Other" in question above, please specify here.

13

DRAFT

Thank You!

Part C DRAFTv1.1 Harmonization Task Force Consultation - BEST PRACTICES forPATENT LAW HARMONIZATION

19. Thank you very much for your responses today. Please provide any additional thoughts you may have,or suggestions on how we may improve Part C of this survey.

If you have already responded to Part A and Part B of the survey,we thank you very much for taking the time and commitment tocompleting the entire survey!

If you have not yet responded to Part A and/B of the Survey, pleaseremember to do so as soon as possible:

Link to Part A of the Survey

Link to Part B of the Survey

14

DRAFT