DOCSLIB.ORG

Patent Family Data and Statistics at the European Patent Office

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patent Family Data and Statistics at the European Patent Office European Patent Office Patent family data and statistics at the European Patent Office. Peter Hingley; EPO, Munich Walter Park; American University, USA WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 1. Introduction ¾ 2. Construction of families ¾ 3. Sociology of families ¾ 4. Timeliness of families data ¾ 5. Statistical description of filing trends ¾ 6. Families as a basis for forecasting filings ¾ 7. Conclusions WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 2. Construction of patent families Priority forming DOCDB publications database First Filings Applications, Grants (with references to priorities) Priority 1 Application A Priority 2 Application B Priority 3 Application C, Grant C Rearrange as families (PRI file) : Family 1 Priority 1 Application A Status A Family 2 Priority 2 Application A, Application B Status A Family 3 Priority 3 Application C, Grant C Status G Country & Bloc of Filing (EPC, Japan, US, Others), Applicant & Inventor Names, Priority date, Subsequent filings dates, Utility model / Patent, Classification (IPC & NACE), PCT involved, EPO involved. WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 3. Sociology of patent families Families originating from first filings in EPC contracting states (including EPO first filings) in 1997. Monolateral families ("First") First: 127179 Out: 42700 T.P.F: 15539 Bilateral familes ("Out") Trilateral patent families ("T.P.F.") WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 3. Sociology of patent families From EPC to any other Blocs (Priority Year 1997) 129179 EPC US and/or and/or JAPAN OTHERS 42700 (33%) WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 3. Sociology of patent families From EPC to Other Trilateral Blocs (Priority Year 1997) 129179 EPC US and/or JAPAN 33880 (26%) WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 3. Sociology of patent families Trilateral patent families from EPC (Priority Year 1997) 129179 EPC US and JAPAN 15339 (12%) WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 3. Sociology of patent families Trilateral patent families (Priority Year 1997) 129179 EPC 15339 (12%) 151652US23458 (16%) T.P.F. 20255 (6%) JAPAN 348329 2254 (2%) OTHERS 133254 WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 3. Sociology of patent families Families subsequent filings to EPO (Priority Year 1997) 129179 48647 EPC EPO 32124 19979 36231 25143 151652US 3748 JAPAN 348329 5783 OTHERS 133254 WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 3. Sociology of patent families Families from EPC using the PCT system (Priority Year 1997) EPC 24186 (86%) 27999 US 12657 (45%) PCT 13281 (47%) JAPAN 19885 (71%) OTHERS WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 3. Sociology of patent families Consolidation of families - Minimum bound Priority filings Subsequent filings x x x x x x Φ x x Θ x x x x x x x l = pΦ = yΘ = 10 p = 7 y = 8 Φ = average number of subsequent filings linked to a priority filing. Θ = average number of priority filings linked to a subsequent filing. WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 3. Sociology of patent families Consolidation of families Minimum bound: cmin = p + y - l Important formula: l = pΦ = yΘ Therefore: cmin = p - (Θ -1)y Maximum bound is effectively p. Preliminary comparison exercise by EPO / OECD on priorities in 1993. Consolidation reduced OECD Triadic patent families to 71% of the unconsolidated number. Minimum bound on EPO data was 67%. System works for Bilateral families. Need to think carefully about the extension to Trilateral patent families. WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 4. Timeliness of patent family data Trends in Φ and Θ. EPC Contracting states priorities flowing to EPO (includes all first filings at EPO). 1.30 1.25 1.20 Theta 1.15 Phi Phi trend 1.10 1.05 1.00 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 4. Timeliness of patent family data Trends in Φ and Θ. Japan priorities flowing to EPO. 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 Theta Phi 1.30 Phi trend 1.20 1.10 1.00 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 4. Timeliness of patent family data Trends in Φ and Θ. U.S. priorities flowing to EPO. 1.60 1.50 1.40 Theta 1.30 Phi Phi trend 1.20 1.10 1.00 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 4. Timeliness of patent family data Trends in Φ and Θ. Others priorities flowing to EPO. 3.00 2.80 2.60 2.40 2.20 Theta 2.00 Phi Phi trend 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 4. Timeliness of patent family data Fig. 1 a) Subsequent filings to EPO from various blocs of origin (y). 160000 140000 120000 All 100000 y 80000 60000 EPC 40000 US Japan 20000 Others 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year of priority forming first filing. WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 4. Timeliness of patent family data Fig. 1 b) Numbers of families leading to subsequent filings at the EPO from various blocs of origin (p). Points are actual values from the PRI file, and lines are trends (see Annex A). 140000 120000 All 100000 80000 p 60000 EPC 40000 U.S. Japan 20000 Other 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year of priority forming first filing. WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 5. Statistical description of filing trends Origin All 1984 Origin All 1994 A H A H H A A A H H H A B First: 495539 B B First: 662257 G Out: 74784 B B Out: 108995 G G T.P.F.: 36567 B G T.P.F.: 49888 Origin All 1999 G G F C F E D F C C E D C F E D F C A E D C E D F H A ED H A Human necessities H A B Performing Operations B C Chemistry & Metallurgy First: 798634 B Out: 163648 B D Textiles & Paper T.P.F.: 31291 G E Fixed Constructions G F Mechanical Engineering G C G Physics F E D C C H Electricity F ED F ED WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 5. Statistical description of filing trends Origin EPC Contracting States 1984 Origin EPC Contracting States 1994 H A H A H A H A H H A A G G G B G G G B First: 96716 B First: 107661 F Out: 24723 Out: 32634 B F T.P.F.: 14459 TPF: 10866 B B F Origin EPC 1999 F F E F E E D C E D C D D E C E C D D C H A C A Human necessities H A H A B Performing Operations C Chemistry & Metallurgy G G First: 130999 B D Textiles & Paper G Out: 44628 T.P.F.: 5070 B E Fixed Constructions B F F Mechanical Engineering F F G Physics E D C E D H Electricity E C D C WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 5. Statistical description of filing trends Origin Japan 1984 Origin Japan 1994 A A H A A H H A A B H H H B B B B B First: 257983 First: 318261 Out: 25634 Out: 35250 T.P.F.: 14073 T.P.F.: 16442 C G G G Origin Japan 1999 G C C D C D D E F E C G E G F F F ED C A ED F ED A F H A Human necessities A B H B B Performing Operations H B C Chemistry & Metallurgy First: 356397 D Textiles & Paper Out: 45400 E Fixed Constructions T.P.F.: 13377 C G C F Mechanical Engineering C ED D G F E G Physics G F H Electricity ED F WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 5. Statistical description of filing trends Origin U.S. 1984 Origin U.S. 1994 A H H A H A H A H A H A B G First: 121733 G First: 48665 B G Out: 19734 Out: 34191 G B T.P.F.: 11103 B G T.P.F.: 17327 G B B F Origin U.S. 1999 F E F D C F ED C F ED C E A F D C ED C E C H D H A A Human necessities H A B Performing Operations B C Chemistry & Metallurgy First: 153350 B Out: 63762 D Textiles & Paper B G T.P.F.: 12003 E Fixed Constructions G F Mechanical Engineering F C G Physics G ED C C H Electricity F ED F ED WIPO-OECD Workshop on Patent Statistics, 18 & 19 / 09 / 2003. EPO Patent families 5. Statistical description of filing trends Origin Others 1984 Origin Others 1994 H A A H H A A H H A H G G A B G First: 92175 G Out: 4693 First: 114602 B T.P.F.: 525 B Out: 6920 F B F B T.P.F.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Patent Law: a Handbook for Congress
    Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46525 SUMMARY R46525 Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 A patent gives its owner the exclusive right to make, use, import, sell, or offer for sale the invention covered by the patent. The patent system has long been viewed as important to Kevin T. Richards encouraging American innovation by providing an incentive for inventors to create. Without a Legislative Attorney patent system, the reasoning goes, there would be little incentive for invention because anyone could freely copy the inventor’s innovation. Congressional action in recent years has underscored the importance of the patent system, including a major revision to the patent laws in 2011 in the form of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Congress has also demonstrated an interest in patents and pharmaceutical pricing; the types of inventions that may be patented (also referred to as “patentable subject matter”); and the potential impact of patents on a vaccine for COVID-19. As patent law continues to be an area of congressional interest, this report provides background and descriptions of several key patent law doctrines. The report first describes the various parts of a patent, including the specification (which describes the invention) and the claims (which set out the legal boundaries of the patent owner’s exclusive rights). Next, the report provides detail on the basic doctrines governing patentability, enforcement, and patent validity. For patentability, the report details the various requirements that must be met before a patent is allowed to issue.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Patent Convention and the London Agreement
    Feature European changes The European Patent Convention and the London Agreement EPC 2000 – why change? By Pierre-André Dubois and Shannon The EPC 1973 came into force in 1977 and Yavorsky, Kirkland & Ellis International LLP revolutionised patent practice. However, in the last 30 years, the patent landscape The European Patent Convention (EPC 2000) changed significantly and it became apparent came into force on 13th December 2007, that there was a real need to overhaul the introducing sweeping changes to the dated legislation. First, the Agreement on European patent system. The new Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual convention governs the granting of European Property Rights (TRIPs) and the Patent Law patents by the European Patent Office (EPO) Treaty (PLT) came into force, and it was and applies throughout the 34 contracting questionable whether the EPC 1973 was in states of the European Patent Organisation line with the provisions of each of these (ie, the 27 EU Member States as well as agreements. As one example, the EPC 2000 Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, clarifies that, in accordance with TRIPs, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey). The original patents can now be granted in all fields of convention (EPC 1973), which dates back to technology as long as they are new, 1973, was outdated due to a number of comprise an inventive step and are developments in international law and the susceptible of industrial application. Second, need to improve the procedure before the the EPC 1973 was difficult to amend and, in EPO. While the new convention does not the face of fast-changing technology and overhaul substantive patent law (ie, what European legislation, required greater is patentable and what is not), it does legislative flexibility.
    [Show full text]
  • En Munich, 23.11.2018 SUBJECT: Future
    CA/99/18 Orig.: en Munich, 23.11.2018 SUBJECT: Future EPO building projects – Orientation paper SUBMITTED BY: President of the European Patent Office ADDRESSEES: Administrative Council (for opinion) SUMMARY This document describes the status of the EPO premises and the related building activities to be further elaborated on in the coming months for a more detailed proposal to the Administrative Council in June 2019. By then the different possible scenarios and their pros and cons will have been evaluated for further decision-making, and initial time schedules and cost estimates for the preferred scenarios will be presented. CA/99/18 e 2018-5337 - I - TABLE OF CONTENTS Subject Page I. STRATEGIC/OPERATIONAL 1 II. RECOMMENDATION 1 III. MAJORITY NEEDED 1 IV. CONTEXT 1 V. ARGUMENTS 3 A. MUNICH 3 B. THE HAGUE 6 C. BERLIN 8 D. VIENNA 8 VI. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 10 VII. DOCUMENTS CITED 10 VIII. RECOMMENDATION FOR PUBLICATION 10 CA/99/18 e 2018-5337 I. STRATEGIC/OPERATIONAL 1. Strategic II. RECOMMENDATION 2. The Council is requested to give an opinion on this orientation paper. III. MAJORITY NEEDED 3. N.A. IV. CONTEXT 4. The President presented the overall strategy for building management and a status review of the EPO premises in his last activities report (CA/88/18). It is stated there that the EPO's building strategy is to deliver a modern working environment along with efficient and effective space management and to preserve the value of the EPO's assets. The Office's main goals for its buildings and the layout of workplaces are: Transparent, flexible and modern workplaces to foster collaboration Similar working conditions for all EPO staff at all sites Working conditions that improve staff well-being Maintenance to preserve asset value Increased sustainability and, in particular, reduction in carbon dioxide footprint Compliance with changing legal requirements to continuously ensure safety and security.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Harmonisation and Utilisation: First Europe and Then the World?
    Patent Harmonisation and Utilisation: First Europe and Then the World? Dr Mark Weaver 3 December 2009 Director Practice & Procedure Utilisation and Harmonisation - Drivers Challenges • Worldwide Patent Application Backlogs - Millions • Duplication of Work • Increased Costs • Lack of Consistency • Increased Legal Uncertainty Possible Solutions • Utilisation and Work Sharing • New Bilateral or Multi-Lateral Agreements • Improve on Existing Work Sharing Agreements • Substantive Patent Law Harmonisation • Simplified Language Requirements First Europe ... European Patent Landscape EPO - 36 Member States Unified Patent Litigation System Austria • Belgium • Bulgaria • Croatia • UPLS Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Iceland • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Liechtenstein • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Former Yugoslav Republic of European and Macedonia • Malta • Monaco • Netherlands • Community Norway • Poland • Portugal • Romania • Community San Marino • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Patents Court Patent Sweden • Switzerland • Turkey • United Kingdom ECPC European patent applications and patents can European also be extended at the applicant's request to Enhanced Patent Network the following states: Partnership Albania • Bosnia-Herzegovina • Serbia EPN Status: December 2009 European Patent Landscape • Unified Patent Litigation System • Draft Council Conclusions on an enhanced patent system in Europe http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st14/st14040.en09.pdf • Draft Council Agreement
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Patent Data
    Introduction to patent data Gianluca Tarasconi, rawpatentdata.blogspot.com IP introduction Querying patent databases is a process where user can meet pitfalls. Datasets answer exactly what they are asked. In order to ask the correct question some background is needed. IP overview Legal right What for? How? Application and Patents New inventions examination Original creative or Exists Copyright artistic forms automatically* Distinctive identification Use and/or Trade marks of products or services registration Registered External appearance Registration* designs Valuable information Reasonable efforts Trade secrets not known to10 the public to keep secret Worldwide patents filings https://www3.wipo.int/ipstats/ipslinechart by patent office 10 Patent Information (I): Ipad Patent Document front page (USD503889) The patent document is the data source; For statistical purposes the data must, however, be cleaned, normalized and reclassified; You need to be able to query (with queries or user interfaces); The latter is the reason why resources (databases, reports, etc.) where data has been preprocessed are used. 2 Patent front page 2 CAVEAT! Is 1 patent = 1 invention? NO Due to applicant strategy, institutional bias etc 1 patent family = 1 invention 10 * PATENT FAMILY DEFINITION A patent family is "a set of patents taken in various countries to protect a single invention (when a first application in a country – the priority – is then extended to other offices).“ In other words, a patent family is "the same invention disclosed by a common inventor(s) and patented in more than one country.” 10 PATENT FAMILY 10 PATENT FAMILY – from EPO Espacenet 10 CAVEAT 2! Is 1 document number= 1 patent? NO Also application kind defines type of application.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Patent Convention, 3 Md
    Maryland Journal of International Law Volume 3 | Issue 2 Article 10 The urE opean Patent Convention Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil Part of the International Law Commons, and the International Trade Commons Recommended Citation The European Patent Convention, 3 Md. J. Int'l L. 408 (1978). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil/vol3/iss2/10 This Notes & Comments is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION The European Patent Convention' (EPC) is an attempt to simplify European patent law. The Convention provides a procedure for securing a single, European patent,2 which has the effect of a national patent in the signatory nations designated in the application. Through this alternative to national procedures, widespread patent coverage should be easier to obtain. Require- patent, however, are rigorous and its ments for a European 3 attraction is primarily the consolidation of the grant procedures. The EPC establishes several organs to handle the various aspects of the patent application procedure. The European Patent Office (EPO), located in Munich, is the international equivalent of a national patent office. Its administrative divisions are the General Search Division, the Examining Division, and the Opposition Division. The Receiving Section is at The Hague. The first procedural step is the filing of an application at either a national patent office or directly with the EPO.4 The application may be in any of the three official languages (English, French, or German) and the applicant's choice becomes the language of the proceedings.5 The Receiving Section subjects the application to both a preliminary6 and a supplementary formal examination to determine whether it is in proper form and all fees are paid.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
    Template Version Number: 01-2020 U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Privacy Threshold Analysis for the Patent End to End (PE2E) System Template Version Number: 01-2020 U.S. Department of Commerce Privacy Threshold Analysis USPTO Patent End to End (PE2E) System Unique Project Identifier: PTOP-003-00 Introduction: This Privacy Threshold Analysis (PTA) is a questionnaire to assist with determining if a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) is necessary for this IT system. This PTA is primarily based from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) privacy guidance and the Department of Commerce (DOC) IT security/privacy policy. If questions arise or further guidance is needed in order to complete this PTA, please contact your Bureau Chief Privacy Officer (BCPO). Description of the information system and its purpose: Provide a general description (in a way that a non-technical person can understand) of the information system that addresses the following elements: The E-Government Act of 2002 defines “ information system” by reference to the definition section of Title 44 of the United States Code. The following is a summary of the definition: “ Information system” means a discrete set of information resources organized for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, or disposition of information. See: 44. U.S.C. § 3502(8). Patents End-to-End (PE2E) is a Master system portfolio consisting of next generation Patents Automated Information Systems (AIS). The goal of PE2E is to make the interaction of USPTO’s users as simple and efficient as possible in order to accomplish user goals.
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE Guidelines for Examination General Part Amended in December, 2007
    EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE Guidelines for Examination General Part Amended in December, 2007 CONTENTS 1. Preliminary remarks 2. Explanatory notes 2.1 Overview 2.2 Abbreviations 3. General remarks 4. Work at the EPO 5. Survey of the processing of applications and patents at the EPO 6. Contracting States to the EPC 7. Extension to states not party to the EPC 1 1. Preliminary remarks In accordance with Art. 10(2)(a) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), the President of the European Patent Office (EPO) had adopted, effective as at 1 June 1978, the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office. These Guidelines have been and will be updated at regular intervals to take account of developments in European patent law and practice. Amended or new text (as compared to the latest previous version only) is indicated by a vertical line in the right-hand margin. Mere deletions are indicated by two horizontal lines in the right-hand margin. Usually, updates only involve amendments to specific sentences or passages on individual pages, in order to bring at least part of the text more closely into line with patent law and EPO practice as these continue to evolve. It follows that no update can ever claim to be complete. Any indication from readers drawing the attention to errors as well as suggestions for improvement are highly appreciated and may be sent by e-mail to: [email protected] The Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office are also published by the EPO in an electronic, searchable form on the Internet via the EPO website: http://www.epo.org 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Litigation and USPTO Trials: Implications for Patent Examination Quality
    U.S. Patent and Trademark Office U.S. Department of Commerce Patent Litigation and USPTO Trials: Implications for Patent Examination Quality January 2015 PROJECT TEAM Office of Chief Economist Alan C. Marco Richard D. Miller Office of Patent Legal Administration Kathleen Kahler Fonda Pinchus M. Laufer Office of Patent Quality Assurance Paul Dzierzynski Martin Rater United States Patent and Trademark Office 600 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Page 1 of 80 Executive Summary Introduction In response to a recommendation from the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) Report GAO-13-465, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has conducted a study regarding the relationship between certain patent- and patent examination-related characteristics and the likelihood of subsequent patent infringement litigation initiated by the patent holder or inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by a third party at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The goal was to gather information that could lead to enhanced patent quality. A review of the existing literature revealed that significant empirical work has been conducted relating the likelihood of litigation to various characteristics of the patents and parties involved. However, we have found few attempts to relate characteristics of the patent examination process to subsequent litigation. Also, because the IPR option is relatively new, no work has been done to find any systematic differences between patents that undergo IPR and those that do not. The purpose of this report is to begin to fill in some of these gaps in the existing literature, and to determine the extent to which such studies can inform improvements to patent quality.
    [Show full text]
  • M&A Strategy
    MODULE 06 Patent Information MODULE 06. Patent Information OUTLINE LEARNING POINT 1: Understanding patent information 1. Patent information & Patent documents (1) Patent Information (2) Patent documents 2. Advantages of patent information LEARNING POINT 2: Type of patent information search 1. State‐of‐the‐art & Patentability search (1) State‐of‐the‐art search (2) Patentability search 2. Infringement search 3. Validity search 4. Index or name search LEARNING POINT 3: Method of patent information search 1. Types of patent information databases (1) CD‐ROM (2) Online databases 2. Selection of databases 3. Example of on‐line databases search (1) How to access Full‐Text database (2) How to use a Quick Search page LEARNING POINT 4: Strategic use of patent information 1. In licensing (1) ‘Licensing in’ technology (2) ‘Licensing out’ technology (3) ‘Cross‐licensing’ 2. In Mergers & Acquisitions 3. In Research & Development 4. In Human Resource Management INTRODUCTION Even the latest gadgets get outdated in no time. Umpteen, new or improved models are constantly appearing on the market. Can something be really done to survive this fierce competition? In this module, we look at the role of patent information in protecting a business as well as in helping it to gain a competitive edge. In particular, we are going to deal with what is meant by patent information and why it is important and discuss how patent information may be used including searching patent information and strategically using the results of such a search. LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. You understand the concept of patent information. 2. You understand how to strategically use patent information.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventions and Patents
    MODULE 03 Inventions and Patents MODULE 03. Inventions and Patents OUTLINE LEARNING POINT 1: Basics of invention and patent 1. One way of adding value to a product 2. Reasons for patenting an invention LEARNING POINT 2: Patent application 1. Evaluating the patentability of an invention 2. Deciding whether to patent an invention 3. Preparing a patent application (1) Detailed description of the invention (2) Claims (3) Who prepares (4) After filing a patent application LEARNING POINT 3: Patent infringement 1. Definition of patent infringement 2. If you come across your competitor’s patent LEARNING POINT 4: Patent management system 1. Basic elements of a patent management system 2. Patent portfolio INTRODUCTION The term "intellectual property (IP)" is defined as the property resulting from creations of the human mind, the intellect. In this regard, it is fair that the person making efforts for an intellectual creation has some benefit as a result of this endeavor. Probably, the most important among intellectual properties is “patent.” A patent is an exclusive right granted by a government for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem. The details on the way of acquiring patents will be provided for protecting precious intellectual properties. LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. You understand how to decide whether your new technology or invention should be protected by one or more patents and, if so, how to do so. 2. You know how the grant of a patent over an invention or technology helps you to prevent or have an upper hand in legal disputes that may arise later on.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Patent Office
    INTEllECTUAl PROPERTY 286 CHIMIA 2000, 54, No.5 Chimia 54 (2000) 286-287 © Neue Schweizerische Chemische Gesellschatl ISSN 0009-4293 Safeguarding Europe-Wide Patent Protection: the European Patent Office Ulrich Schatz* Abstract: The European patent system, created in 1977, provides for the co-existence of a national and a centralised procedure for the grant of patents. Central grant authority for European patents is the European Patent Office in Munich, which carries out its task on the basis of the provisions laid down in the European Patent Convention. The establishment of a Europe-wide patent system has led to a significant increase in the demand for patent rights in Europe. Inthe framework of their co-operation, the member states of the European Patent Organisation have also created a unique patent information network for accessing the information contained in patent documents. In view of its impending eastward expansion, the European Patent Organisa- tion is set to undertake a revision of the European patent system to ensure its flexibility in the future. Keywords: esp@cenet . Europe· Innovation· Internet· Patent information' Patents The conclusion of the European Patent borders proves that this Organisation has grounds for revocation by the EPO in an Convention on 5 October 1973 was an changed the landscape of industrial prop- opposition procedure and those by na- important milestone on the road to a uni- erty protection in Europe. The worldwide tional courts in revocation or infringe- fied patent in Europe. In 1997 the Europe- development in the field of patents has, ment procedures. Furthermore, the Con- an Patent Office celebrated its 20th anni- moreover, been significantly influenced vention provides for professional repre- versary, The founding of the European by the European Patent Convention enter- sentation before the EPO, creates the Patent Organisation in 1977 and the open- ing into force.
    [Show full text]