Company Profile

Our Patent and Trademark office exists since 1991 established by Václav Kratochvíl, who worked on The Czech Patent Office and from 1991 is Patent Attorney in Czech Republic and from 2002 also European Patent Attorney.

Since that time, we acquire many experiences with valid industrial property right in Czech Republic and we are also able to help with international patent and trademark applications (EP, national part of the PCT), so we would like you to offer our services.

We can help you with the patent and utility model applications, industrial model applications and also with the Trademark applications before The Intellectual Property Office of the Czech Republic and The European Patent Office. Our services including patent and trademark search and other services in the industrial property indeed, such as suggestions for the license agreement, valuation of the intellectual property and so on.

Thank you for your time spending on reading this information and we look forward of eventual cooperation.

 

Industrial Property Rights Services

  • Patents and Utility models applications
  • Industrial models (design) applications
  • Trademark applications
  • International PCT and EP patent applications
  • International Trademark applications (Madrid protocol)
  • Representation before The Intellectual Property Office of The Czech Republic
  • Representation before EPO (The European Patent Office)
  • Patent and Trademark search
  • Suggestions for the license agreement
  • Appreciation of the intellectual property

Search

EPO News

News from the European Patent Office
  • The automated mail-box at the EPO’s headquarters in Munich (Isar building, Kohlstrasse) is being closed as from 1 April 2017.

  • The EPO and Russia's Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent) have launched their joint Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot programme to enable work-sharing and accelerated treatment of patent applications in both regions.

  • In its order for decision G1/15, related to the question of partial priorities and so-called toxic divisionals, the Enlarged Board of the EPO held that a generic claim encompassing alternative subject matter may not be refused partial priority, provided the alternative subject matter has been directly, at least implicitly, and unambiguously disclosed in the priority document.