This page is intended to provide a platform for informal exchange of views, discussions and proposals on the proposed new Section 102bis of the Administrative Instructions under the PCT (“the Administrative Instruction”), contained in Circular C. PCT 1625, dated June 15, 2021.  The Circular proposed to introduce a broader definition of what constitutes a "signature" in relation to paper documents. Namely,

Section 102bis "Signature on Paper Documents" which reads:

"A signature provided on a paper document shall be handwritten, printed, typed or stamped." 

Currently, neither the Regulations under the PCT (“PCT Rules”) nor the Administrative Instructions define what constitutes a “signature” for paper submissions, other than what is contained in PCT Rule 2.3 which clarifies that where the use of a seal is required instead of a signature under national law, any reference to signature in the PCT Regulations is to be understood as including a seal. Apart from the special case of a seal, it has generally been understood that a signature for paper submissions under the PCT System must be a handwritten ink signature.  It should be noted that for electronic submissions, a definition of what constitutes an acceptable signature is provided in Annex F of the Administrative Instructions.

While most responses to the Circular supported the introduction of a new definition in the Administrative Instructions, several Offices raised concerns and/or suggested counter proposals.  Firstly, a few questioned the practical necessity of introducing a new definition.  Secondly, some Offices requested further discussions on the proposed types of signatures, notably the “printed signature” and the “typed signature”, and emphasized the importance of more detailed description of these signatures.  Thirdly, two Offices provided counter-proposals.  One of these Offices proposed that any valid form of signature before an IP Office be recognized during the international phase, provided that the Office had notified the International Bureau of the types of signature that it accepted.  The other counter-proposal concerned the language of the proposed provision and suggested that rather than oblige all Offices to accept certain types of signatures in addition to ink signatures, to only authorize certain other types of signatures if an Office so wishes.

The International Bureau notes that the comments received thus far lacks a consensus on how best to proceed with the proposed new Section.  By exchanging views via this PCT Working Group Wiki, the International Bureau hopes that an agreement can be reached based on the following principles:

• legal certainty (it needs to be clear to applicants what type of signatures will be acceptable: signatures accepted by one Office should not be open to questions by other Offices and Authorities both in the international and the national phase)
• avoid of adding complexity to the PCT system

Points to be discussed:

We have created a subpage for each of the three points below that need further discussions.  For further information and to post your comments, please click on the relevant link for the discussion point.

1. The practical necessity of introducing a new definition ("Practical Necessity").
2. Definitions and more detailed descriptions of each type of signature "printed", "typed" and "stamped" ("Definitions and Descriptions").
3. Other proposals addressed in response to the above Circular ("Other Proposals").