Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

COVID-19 and Intellectual Property

By Kirk A. Damman of Lewis Rice, Kathleen Markowski Petrillo of Lewis Rice & Michael Armstrong of Lewis Rice on March 26, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Despite the COVID-19 closures and cancellations, some governmental intellectual property offices have not extended deadlines, so parties should remain mindful that protections for individuals and businesses should not be overlooked. Many patent and trademark offices around the world are providing relief for businesses that may have difficulty tending to their intellectual property filings due to other pressing COVID-19-related concerns; some have not. Lewis Rice remains in close contact with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and worldwide foreign associates to ensure that your deadlines are not missed, and that your intellectual property will be secure when normalcy returns. We have not found any governmental intellectual property office that has changed the first-to-file rule for purposes of original patent protection, so parties should not delay filing new patents.

United States Deadlines

The relief currently offered by the USPTO is very narrow in scope because the vast majority of deadlines for patents and trademarks are set by law and cannot be modified, extended, or waived by the USPTO. As a result, the current outbreak of COVID-19 will not change the requirements of timely filing, unless the USPTO is closed by the federal government. At this time, there does not appear to be any plan to close the USPTO entirely, but the situation obviously remains fluid.

The USPTO has responded to the COVID-19 outbreak by eliminating all in-person meetings—all appeals and interviews will now be conducted by video or telephone—and closing the USPTO to the public, which began on March 16, 2020.

Where communications with the USPTO are delayed due to COVID-19, and where the delay has resulted in a patent application being abandoned or a reexamination prosecution being terminated, the USPTO will waive fees to revive the application or reexamination, as long as any such request is made within two months of the USPTO’s notice of abandonment or termination. The same relief will be offered for trademarks that were abandoned, cancelled, or expired due to an inability to timely respond to communications from the USPTO. Other relief may be available on a case-by-case basis.

International Deadlines

Elsewhere, critical deadlines have been extended in a number of places, but these changes vary by country and governmental entity. In Europe, the European Union Intellectual Property Office has extended to May 4, 2020 the deadlines for all time limits between the present and April 30 for trademarks, while the European Patent Office has extended deadlines to April 17, 2020, though certain ongoing proceedings will continue to be held by videoconference. By contrast, the World Intellectual Property Organization, responsible for Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) applications, has stated that it will continue to process applications without changes to deadlines.

The effect of COVID-19 on foreign IP offices varies considerably worldwide, often as a reflection of each country’s response to the outbreak and/or how severely it has been affected to date. The following are relevant snippets of press releases from some of the larger offices around the world:

  • The Benelux Office of Intellectual Property (serving Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg) has suspended deadlines for cases so long as emergency restrictions are in place for its member countries, and will grant extensions of at least a month after restrictions are lifted to address any deadlines during this period;
  • Brazil’s National Institute of Industrial Property has closed, with all deadlines extended to April 14, 2020;
  • Canada’s IP Office has extended all deadlines to April 1, 2020;
  • China’s National IP Administration has stated it will forego late fees for missed annuity payments for issued patents, where the delay is due to COVID-19, and will also extend deadlines for trademark applicants or registrants;
  • Germany’s Patent and Trademark Office position is similar to that of the USPTO —it will consider COVID-19 issues with regard to deadlines to reestablish rights in patent and trademark cases, but cannot extend deadlines specified by law, though it will extend deadlines for pending IP procedures until at least May 4, 2020
  • India’s Patent and Trademark Offices has closed until April 15, 2020, extending all deadlines until at least that date;
  • Italy’s Patent and Trademark Office has suspended most deadlines until at least April 3, 2020, with no current extension for oppositions and appeals;
  • The Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia is closed until at least April 1, 2020, with all priority deadlines suspended to that date, and all appeal, opposition, and payment deadlines extended to April 30, 2020;
  • Mexico’s IP Office has suspended and extended all deadlines until at least April 20, 2020;
  • South Africa’s IP Office has extended all deadlines to May 4, 2020;
  • South Korea’s IP Office will grant extensions for failure to make payments or for a failure to timely submit documents, provided that applicants submit a request for an extension, along with an explanatory statement and evidence; and
  • United Kingdom’s IP Office initially stated that it will extend deadlines, grant extensions, and reinstate IP rights lost during the outbreak on a case-by-case basis, and has since added that it will extend deadlines to the extent allowed under national and international law.

Smaller offices have, in many cases, suspended operations or deadlines indefinitely (Andorra, Pakistan; Peru, Portugal, Romania, Syria), while others have suspended operations to a specific date, which could change (Iraq, Spain—March 29; Lebanon—March 30; Djibouti, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan—April 1; Argentina—April 3; Palestine (Gaza)—April 5; Libya, Palestine (West Bank), Tunisia—April 6; Kuwait—April 12; Philippines—April 15, 2020). These decisions have often been made with little to no warning, and as such, the decision to resume operations (and deadlines) may also come with little warning, requiring quick action by all parties involved.

Summary

To be concise, this is only a sampling of announcements made in the past few days, and even then, only a summary of the current status of each office. The worldwide situation is incredibly dynamic, with offices often issuing releases, only to modify those same releases within hours. These issues are compounded by the fact that there are nearly 400 separate foreign, regional, and international IP offices across nearly 200 countries, each subject to numerous treaties, laws, and regulations.

Individuals and entities are encouraged not to rely on these extended deadlines unless absolutely necessary. In some countries (e.g., the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany), there is no guarantee that the outbreak will provide protections against missed deadlines. In most others, deferred deadlines will result in a large number of deadlines all coming due on the same date, creating logistical difficulties for filing, both for IP practitioners as well as the receiving offices. Missing a deadline, even one extended due to pandemic, can result in a permanent loss of IP rights. To avoid any lapse of rights, we will continue to instruct our foreign associates electronically according to the original deadlines so that they are prepared to file responses when it becomes possible.

If you have questions regarding IP, domestically or internationally, please contact one of the authors of this alert or another member of Lewis Rice’s Intellectual Property Group.

Connect to Kirk, Kathleen and Michael on LinkedIn. 

Photo of Kirk A. Damman of Lewis Rice Kirk A. Damman of Lewis Rice

Kirk A. Damman practices in all areas of intellectual property law, with an emphasis on helping startup and growing companies begin to manage, license, and gain value from their intellectual property (patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets) as well as obtain protection for…

Kirk A. Damman practices in all areas of intellectual property law, with an emphasis on helping startup and growing companies begin to manage, license, and gain value from their intellectual property (patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets) as well as obtain protection for their most important ideas and products. With a degree in physics and licensed to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for more than 20 years, Kirk works with clients whose products are as diverse as circuit and electrical designs, medical devices, computer software and Internet, heavy equipment and manufacturing, alternative energy and fuel, and consumer goods.

Kirk co-authored two books on patent law and is a mentor for local startups with Gateway Volunteer Mentoring Service. He also works with startups in other areas including issues related to crowdfunding campaigns and additive manufacturing (3D Printing). Kirk is also an active member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, where he was formerly the Chairman of the Committee for Emerging Technologies. He is also involved with the Intellectual Property Committee of the IEEE. In 2018, Kirk was selected to receive Missouri Lawyer’s Media‘s Top Legal Innovation Award.

Kirk was selected for inclusion in Missouri & Kansas Rising Stars® 2010 and 2013.

Read more about Kirk A. Damman of Lewis RiceEmailKirk's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Kathleen Markowski Petrillo of Lewis Rice Kathleen Markowski Petrillo of Lewis Rice

Kathleen Markowski Petrillo’s primary focus is to develop and enforce worldwide patent portfolios. She counsels companies in the pharma, biotech, medical, energy, oil and gas, agricultural, and food science industries, ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-up and emerging growth companies, universities, and…

Kathleen Markowski Petrillo’s primary focus is to develop and enforce worldwide patent portfolios. She counsels companies in the pharma, biotech, medical, energy, oil and gas, agricultural, and food science industries, ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-up and emerging growth companies, universities, and venture capital firms. A registered patent attorney, Kathleen also assists in developing litigation strategies for patent infringement lawsuits and Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.

Kathleen counsels clients on freedom-to-operate and patent enforcement involving products with multi-billion dollar annual sales. She has extensive experience with complex licensing and technology agreements worldwide, and due diligence for venture capital and private equity financings.

Kathleen has worked in a wide range of technologies from FDA-approved polymeric formulations for treating hyperkalemia or hypertension to kamado grills. She has experience and knowledge with small organic molecules for treating pain, cancer and other indications, diagnostic assays for detecting various disease states, contrast agents for use in MRI and optical imaging, NF-KB inhibitors for treating muscular dystrophy, and in vitro cell culture systems for mimicking human vasculature for use in drug discovery. Kathleen has extensive experience assisting clients with polymer hydroxide exchange membranes for fuel cells, and flow batteries, herbicide formulations, oil processing methods and enhanced oil compositions, biocides, and single crystal silicon manufacture.

Kathleen has also worked with engineered tissues for use in organ printing of vasculature and cartilage, transgenic plants, assays for measuring ribosomal translational activity in stressed or dying cells, bioactive conductive polymers for medical devices, high throughout screening methods, cryopreservation, immobilized enzyme materials for carbon capture and fuel cells, protein purification processes, microalgae for biofuels, and recombinant proteins for use as blood substitutes or in treating anemia or chronic heart failure.

Kathleen prepares opinions concerning the infringement and validity of pharmaceuticals, biopharmaceuticals, vaccines and formulations and provides legal opinions to support Paragraph IV certifications for Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) under Hatch-Waxman.

Kathleen was named “Lawyer of the Year” for Patent Law and Patent Litigation for 2017 by The Best Lawyers in America®. She was also selected for inclusion in the Top 50 Women Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyers® in 2012.

Read more about Kathleen Markowski Petrillo of Lewis RiceEmailKathleen's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Michael Armstrong of Lewis Rice Michael Armstrong of Lewis Rice

Michael Armstrong is an associate practicing in the Litigation Department for Lewis Rice. He practices general and business litigation, contracts, employment law, trusts, and partnership law, among other areas.

Prior to joining Lewis Rice, Michael practiced at Blitz, Bardgett, & Deutsch, L.C. and…

Michael Armstrong is an associate practicing in the Litigation Department for Lewis Rice. He practices general and business litigation, contracts, employment law, trusts, and partnership law, among other areas.

Prior to joining Lewis Rice, Michael practiced at Blitz, Bardgett, & Deutsch, L.C. and was a law clerk to the Hon. Judge Michael Reagan for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Read more about Michael Armstrong of Lewis RiceEmailMichael's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    ILN IP Insider
  • Organization:
    International Lawyers Network
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo