DOCSLIB.ORG

FICPI Historic Event 5Th Open Forum Monte Carlo 3-6 November 1999

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FICPI Historic Event 5Th Open Forum Monte Carlo 3-6 November 1999 FICPI Historic Event 5th Open Forum Monte Carlo 3-6 November 1999 Paper Number Speaker Title Page Number MC/1.1a Jean-Jacques JOLY Unity Of Invention In Europe 3 MC/1.1b Leonard SVENSSON Recent Changes In Practice At The Uspto 9 MC/1.2 Michael FYSH QC, SC of Scope Of Claims 15 the London and Dublin Bars MC/1 H. Sam FROST Are We Content With A Novelty Standard 23 That Creates Two Classes Of Patentable Subject Matter? (Is Anyone Interested In A Sale Bar?) MC/1.6 Peter JAMES Regional Patent Systems In Africa 31 MC/1.6 Vladimir RYBAKOV Eurasian Patent System: An Advantage To 36 Be Employed MC/1.7 Dr. Daniel ALGE, Vienna Opposition Practice At The Epo 42 MC/2.1a Jean-Marie Trade Mark Use On The Internet 52 BOURGOGNON MC/2.1b Tan Tee Jim, S.C., Trade Mark Use On The Internet 57 SINGAPORE MC/2.2a K.L. HENRIKSEN Bad Faith Registration 72 MC/2.2b William HOWIE Bad Faith Trade Mark Registrations 79 MC/2.5 Paul STEINHAUSER, Trademark Litigation In Europe: The 85 Amsterdam Interplay Between National Trademarks And Community Trademarks MC/3.6 Ethan HORWITZ Cost Of Action Vs. Damages In 89 Trademarks Infringement Actions In The United States MC/3.3 Harold C. Wegner Patent Appeals At The U.S. Pto 97 MC/3.3 Knud RAFFNSØE, Appeal Examination System Towards The 110 Denmark 21st Century MC/3.3 Yoshinori Teramoto, JP The Japanese Appeal System 119 MC/3.5 Professor, Jur. Dr. SPARE PARTS And Their PROTECTION 128 Marianne LEVIN, Faculty From A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE of Law, Stockholm University MC/3.6 Keith BERESFORD The State Of The Art In Speech 136 Recognition MC/3.7 Alison DYER, South Africa Indigenous Rights 137 Please note: Only a small selection of the papers presented at the 5th FICPI Open Forum, Monte Carlo 1999 are available in electronic form. last updated: 26 June 2000 Page | 1 FICPI Historic Event 5th Open Forum Monte Carlo 3-6 November 1999 PAPER: MC/1.1a by Jean-Jacques JOLY Unity of Invention in Europe 1. The legal provisions The requirement for unity of invention is set forth in Article 82 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) : "The European patent application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept." As to the grounds for such a provision, some decisions of Boards of Appeal (such as T 110/82, OJ 1983, 274) refer to the regulatory function of Article 82 EPC, namely : to prevent unjustified savings in the payment of official fees, to provide for a "ready comprehensibility" of the object for which protection is sought. Ready comprehensibility of what is claimed is a legitimate reason. Problem is that it is often hardly achieved, even when unity of invention is not questionable. It is nevertheless a good reason to be put forward, in order that the requirement for unity of invention does not appear to be dictated only for the sake of a wealthy EPO budget. Single inventive concept is defined in Rule 30(1) EPC : "Where a group of inventions is claimed in one and the same European patent application, the requirement of unity of invention referred to in Article 82 shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression "special technical features" shall means those features which define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions considered as a whole makes over the prior art" As will be seen hereinafter, assessment of unity of invention by the EPO focused on the identification of such special technical features commonly shared by the different claimed objects. Those technical features qualify as special in the sense that they define a contribution over the prior art, such a contribution being required to recognise a common inventive concept. The above applies equally for European patent applications and for PCT applications. Indeed, same wording as in Article 82 and Rule 30(1) of the EPC is used in Rules 13.1 and 13.2 of the PCT. 2. Assessment of Unity of Invention 2.1 Way of claiming Although unity of invention is not affected by the way of claiming, the EPO has developed guidelines as to the allowability of different independent claims in a single application. This applies both to Page | 2 FICPI Historic Event 5th Open Forum Monte Carlo 3-6 November 1999 European patent applications and to PCT applications for which the EPO acts as International Searching Authority (ISA). A single inventive concept may be recognised between independent claims of different categories as in the following examples : a. a claim for a product, a claim for a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the product and a claim for a use of the product; b. a claim for a process and a claim for an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the process; c. a claim for a product, a claim for a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the product and a claim for an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the process. Possibilities (a), (b) and (c) were expressly mentioned in the original version of Rule 30 EPC, whereas possibilities (a) and (b) were expressly mentioned in the original version of Rule 13 PCT. Unity between product and process claims requires that the process inherently results in the product, or at least in a component of a composition claimed (decision T 492/91). Unity between process and apparatus or means requires that the apparatus or means have been specifically designed for carrying the process, or at least a step of the process (T861/92), but without excluding any other possible use (W32/88 and W 16/89). A single inventive concept may also be recognised between independent claims of same category. This is however limited to specific cases, such as : several uses of a same product : a pharmaceutical use and a non-therapeutic use (T 200/86), a first medical use and a second medical use (W 5/91, W 28/91), ... intermediate product(s) and final product deriving therefrom, provided they share a same essential structural element (T /82, T 110/82, T 35/87, T 470/91). Indeed, the EPO is not likely to accept a plurality of independent claims having substantially the same object, as can be found in US-type patent applications The objection would then be based on Article 84 EPC (lack of clarity and conciseness). 2.2 Identification of common special features The EPO has taken the following position. The requirement of special technical features defining a contribution over the prior art means that those technical features must be new and not obvious to support a common inventive concept. This allows assessment of unity of invention to be made a posteriori, i.e. after comparison of the claims with the prior art. With respect to PCT applications for Page | 3 FICPI Historic Event 5th Open Forum Monte Carlo 3-6 November 1999 which the EPO acts as ISA, this has been confirmed by a decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeals (G 1/89, G 2/89). Since then, there are a number of decisions by EPO Boards of Appeal holding that there is no unity of invention when no common new and not obvious feature(s) can be recognised in the part of different claims distinguishing over the closest prior art. This means that the assessment of unity of invention is made not with respect of the general inventive concept subjectively claimed by the Applicant, but with respect to the remaining inventive features after comparison with the prior art uncovered during the search. This means also that, at the search stage, some substantive examination as to the novelty and non-obviousness is carried out, although the lack of novelty and non-obviousness should be "immediately" apparent (W 24/90) to validly support an objection of lack of unity. 3. Non-unity objections 3.1 European Patent Applications When the Examiner considers there is no unity of invention, he draws up a partial search report relative to the claims directed to the first identified invention (including claim 1) and issues an invitation to pay further search fee(s) for the other identified invention(s). If the Applicant decides not to pay further search fee(s), the application will proceed only with respect to the searched subject matter (decision G 2/92) of the Enlarged Board of Appeals). Protection on the other subject matter(s) can be obtained only through filing of divisional application(s). It is only when the Applicant pays further search fee(s) that he has the possibility to pursue the application with respect to any of the searched subject matters and to contest the objection of non- unity and request refund of the further search fees paid. It is the Examining Division which is competent to decide on the issue of unity of invention. If it decides that the objection of non-unity was well-founded (and is eventually approved by the Board of Appeals), divisional application(s) will have to be filed if protection is sought on several subject matters. If it decides that the objection was not well founded, the further search fees paid will be reimbursed. 3.2 PCT applications As for European patent applications, when the searching Examiner considers there is no unity of invention, he draws up a partial search report and invites to pay further search fee(s).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The IP5 Offices Chapter 2
    IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Chapter 2 - The IP5 Offices Chapter 2 THE IP5 OFFICES As the world sees economic barriers between nations fade away, innovators want their intellectual creations to be protected concurrently in multiple major markets. It is believed that more than 250,000 patent applications for the same inventions are filed each year in two or more of the IP5 Offices, leading to increasing backlogs. To address this issue, the IP5 Offices are working together to try to reduce the amount of duplication of work that takes place between offices for these patent applications. Patents are used to protect inventions, and their counts are recognized as a measure of innovative activity. Fig. 2.1 shows the number of patents in force worldwide at the end of 2014. The data are based on the most recent worldwide patent information available from the WIPO Statistics Database11. At the end of 2014, 90 percent of the 10.0 million patents that were in-force were valid in one of the IP5 Offices jurisdictions. This demonstrates the prominent role that is played by the IP5 Offices. 11 www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/. Data for patents in force for 2014 are missing for some countries in the WIPO data. Where available, the most recent previous year’s data were substituted for missing 2014 data. 4 IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Chapter 2 - The IP5 Offices The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) leverages acceleration procedures available at each office, while enabling participating offices to share available work results. It is a framework in which an application found to be patentable/allowable by the Office of Earlier Examination (an office which has examined a patent application first) will be subject to accelerated examination with simple procedures, upon the request of the applicant, in a participating Office of Later Examination (an office which will then process the corresponding application).
    [Show full text]
  • HØIBERG Patent Guide How to Patent Your Inventions IMPRESSUM
    HØIBERG Patent Guide How to patent your inventions IMPRESSUM HØIBERG Patent Guide 2016 Also available for download at www.hoiberg.com PUBLISHER HØIBERG EDITOR Susanne Westphael Skov, HØIBERG A special thanks to Sensative AB, Thürmer Tools and Windar Photonics A/S for contributing to this guide. DESIGN & PRODUCTION Sebastian Sejer & Co A/S HØIBERG Adelgade 12, 1304 København K Åbogade 25 A, 8200 Aarhus N Mobilvägen 10, 223 62 Lund, Sweden Tel. +45 3332 0337 www.hoiberg.com CONTENTS 0 Introduction . 3 Foreword from HØIBERG by Pernille Winding Gojkovic og Peter Borg Gaarde . 3 1 Why patent? . 5 2 What protection does a patent provide?. .9 Case 1: Sensative “Aligning an IPR strategy with business partnerships” . 10 3 Who is the rightful owner of a patent? . 12 4 Criteria for patentability . 15 5 Can software be patented? . 19 6 Filing – when and where? . 23 7 Patent application drafting and prosecution . 27 Case 2: Windar Photonics – “An example of successful commercialization of university based research” . 32 8 Going public? How and when to to publish . 35 9 International patenting. 39 10 Alternative IP protection . 43 11 Freedom-to-operate . 47 12 IPR strategy and business plan . 53 Case 3: Thümer Tools ”We are 118 years old – but we just got started!” . 56 13 Licensing patents – Collaboration and licensing . 58 14 What is your patent worth? . 61 15 Due diligence . 64 16 Enforcing patent rights . 68 17 Glossary . 70 18 Contributors . 73 1 2 Foreword from HØIBERG We are proud to present The HØIBERG Patent Guide. Intellectual Property Rights in general and patents in particular are becoming increasingly important to any firm engaged in product development.
    [Show full text]
  • IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Edition
    IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Edition IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Edition European Patent Office, Japan Patent Office, State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China, Korean Intellectual Property Office, United States Patent and Trademark Office Edited by JPO, December 2016 IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Executive Summary Executive Summary The IP5 SR is an annual compilation of patent statistics for the five largest Intellectual Property Offices- the IP5 Offices - namely EPO, JPO, SIPO, KIPO and USPTO. ・At the end of 2014, 10.0 million patents were in force in the world (+6.2 percent). 90 percent of these patents were valid in one of the IP5 Offices jurisdictions. ・In 2014, 2.3 million patent applications were filed worldwide, either as direct national, direct regional or international phase PCT applications, of which 93 percent originated from the IP5 Blocs. ・In 2015, 2.4 million patent applications were filed at the IP5 Offices (+8 percent). ・In 2014, the proportion of applications filed via the PCT was 9 percent for applications originating from the IP5 Blocs. ・Together the IP5 Offices granted 1,017,375 patents in 2015 (6.5 percent more than 2014). ・In 2015, the main developments at the IP5 Offices were: - IP5: On May 22, 2015, the 8th Meeting of the IP5 Heads of Office was held in Suzhou, China. At the meeting, requests from users were discussed to expand the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program to more offices and improve the operation of the PPH. The meeting decided to discuss PPH initiatives within the IP5 with the aim of improving accessibility for users.
    [Show full text]
  • Study on the Quality of the Patent System in Europe
    Ref. Ares(2012)1471488 - 11/12/2012 Study on the quality of the patent system in Europe Tender MARKT/2009/11/D Contract Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union 2009/S 147-214675 of 04/08/2009 March 2011 Authors: Giuseppe Scellato* (Coordinator) Mario Calderini* Federico Caviggioli* Chiara Franzoni* Elisa Ughetto* Evisa Kica1 Victor Rodriguez1 * Politecnico di Torino, DISPEA, IP Finance Institute, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy. 1 Twente University, School of Management and Governance, Department of Legal and Economic Governance Studies, Institute for Governance Studies, Centre for European Studies, P.O. Box 217, NL-7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands. DG MARKT PATQUAL Disclaims: This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors. 2 DG MARKT PATQUAL Definitions and abbreviations: ARIPO African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation DKPTO Danish Patent and Trademark Office DPMA German Patent and Trademark Office ECLA European Patent Classification EESR Extended European Search Report EPC European Patent Convention EPN European Patent Network EPO European Patent Office EQMS European Quality Management System EQS European Quality System ESOP European Search Opinion EU European Union HPO Hungarian Patent Office INPI Portuguese Institute of Industrial Property IPC International Patent Classification IPEA International Preliminary Examining Authority ISA International Search Authority ISO International
    [Show full text]
  • IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Edition
    IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Edition IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Edition European Patent Office, Japan Patent Office, State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China, Korean Intellectual Property Office, United States Patent and Trademark Office Edited by JPO, November 2016 IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Executive Summary Executive Summary The IP5 SR is an annual compilation of patent statistics for the five largest Intellectual Property Offices- the IP5 Offices - namely EPO, JPO, SIPO, KIPO and USPTO. ・At the end of 2014, 10.0 million patents were in force in the world (+6.2 percent). 90 percent of these patents were valid in one of the IP5 Offices jurisdictions. ・In 2014, 2.3 million patent applications were filed worldwide, either as direct national, direct regional or international phase PCT applications, of which 93 percent originated from the IP5 Blocs. ・In 2015, 2.4 million patent applications were filed at the IP5 Offices (+8 percent). ・In 2014, the proportion of applications filed via the PCT was 9 percent for applications originating from the IP5 Blocs. ・Together the IP5 Offices granted 1,017,375 patents in 2015 (6.5 percent more than 2014). ・In 2015, the main developments at the IP5 Offices were: - IP5: On May 22, 2015, the 8th Meeting of the IP5 Heads of Office was held in Suzhou, China. At the meeting, requests from users were discussed to expand the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program to more offices and improve the operation of the PPH. The meeting decided to discuss PPH initiatives within the IP5 with the aim of improving accessibility for users.
    [Show full text]
  • Sipim-Dissertation-Final 1
    The ASEAN Patent System: The Adoption of Regional Patent Office in ASEAN Sipim Wiwatwattana A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2017 Reading Committee: Toshiko Takenaka, Chair Kyoko Tokuno Robert W. Gomulkiewicz Dongsheng Zang Program Authorized to Offer Degree: School of Law © Copyright 2017 Sipim Wiwatwattana University of Washington Abstract The ASEAN Patent System: The Adoption of Regional Patent Office in ASEAN Sipim Wiwatwattana Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Toshiko Takenaka School of Law With the goal of establishing itself as a single market and competitive economic region, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) recognizes the patent system as a mechanism to promote a pro-business environment and to attract technological investment to the region. However, despite efforts to improve patent services, the limited institutional capacity and the flaws in patent registration system in ASEAN countries are still important obstacles for development. This study argues that ASEAN should consider adopting another regional model, namely the regional Patent Office, to remove such difficulties and promote the patent registration system in ASEAN. The core of this study, therefore, is the ASEAN regional Patent Office. The aim of this study seeks to examine the concept and potential impacts, both positive and negative, that the establishment of the regional Patent Office has on ASEAN and to determine whether the regional Patent Office can be a mechanism that helps ASEAN remove the flaws and serve ASEAN’ s interests. Based on a qualitative research, the study examines ASEAN regional framework, current situation, and constraints of patent registration system in ASEAN.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 the IP5 OFFICES
    IP5 Statistics Report 2011 Chapter 2 Chapter 2 THE IP5 OFFICES Patents are recognized throughout the world as a measure of innovative activity. The EPO, the JPO, the KIPO, the SIPO and the USPTO are the largest IP Offices in terms of the volume of patent applications they handle. The following figure shows the prominent role played by the IP5 Offices in terms of the number of patents in force at the end of 2010. The data are based on the most recent worldwide patent information available from the WIPO Statistics Database.8 Fig. 2.1 shows the number of patents in force by bloc in 2010. At the end of 2010, 89 percent of the 7.4 million patents in force were valid in one of the IP5 Offices jurisdictions. 8 http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/. Data for patents in force for 2010 are missing for some countries in the WIPO data. Where available, the most recent previous year’s data were substituted for missing 2010 data. 5 IP5 Statistics Report 2011 Chapter 2 EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE The EPO is the only central patent granting authority for Europe, providing patent protection in up to 40 European countries on the basis of a single patent application and a unitary grant procedure. This represents a market of more than 610 million people. At the end of 2011, the 38 members of the underlying European Patent Organization were: Albania Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Greece Estonia Finland France Germany Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxemburg Malta Monaco Fyr of Macedonia Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania San Marino Slovakia Slovenia Spain Serbia Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom Two other states have agreements with the EPO to allow applicants to request an extension of European patents to their territory: Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro The EPO has also developed a new scheme called validation agreements, allowing the protection of a European patent beyond the borders of the Organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Policy Issues in the Governance of the European Patent System
    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Science and Technology Options Assessment S T O A Current policy issues in the governance of the European patent system STUDY (IP/A/STOA/IC-2008-188) IP/A/STOA/2009-01 PE 424.763 DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT A: ECONOMIC AND SCIENTIFIC POLICIES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS ASSESSMENT Current policy issues in the governance of the European patent system REPORT ABSTRACT The European Parliament has been working towards building a discussion platform and a resource for further policy actions in the field of intellectual property rights. The Science and Technology Options Assessment Panel has set the goal of further enlarging the area of investigation in light of recent policy developments at the European level. In particular, the current study covers current policy issues in the governance of the European patent system, such as the backlog issue, the enhancement of patent awareness within the European Parliament, patent enforcement, the regional dimension of intellectual property in Europe, patents and standardisation, the use of existing patents, and patents and competition. These issues were discussed in the conference with stakeholders from European to national patent offices, from private to public sector actors. As a result of the conference, it was stated the need for an IP strategy for Europe. IP/A/STOA/IC/2008-188 MARCH 2010 PE 424.763 EN STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment _________________________________________________________________________________________ This
    [Show full text]
  • Link to Patent Quality
    Working Paper No 2013/14| June 2013 The Structure of Patent Costs and Patent Offices’ Funding: The (Missing) Link to Patent Quality Michelangelo Temmerman Although each system, whether the USPTO, the EPO is working with a different approach in this respect; none of them works along a consistent decoupling of the patent office’s funding from the number of patents granted. More financial resources – an essential part in achieving better patent quality – thus has to pass through more patent being granted. In other words, the office needing to decide on whether or not an invention should be granted a patent will have less income if it says the invention should not. This is a classic case of conflicts of interest; a case where wrong incentives appear. The paper advances essentially two points. First the funding of patent offices as well as how patent examiners are being assessed and rewarded should be disconnected from the number of patents granted. Second, the most cost-efficient and logical manner to do so - agreeing that innovation in the sense of patent law means should mean the same regardless of national borders - would be to implement an international agency responsible for checking the multilaterally agreed, basic requirements for patentability. Research for this paper was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation under a grant to the National Centre of Competence in Research on Trade Regulation, based at the World Trade Institute of the University of Bern, Switzerland. Contents I. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3 II. Patent office’s financing and the structure of patent costs ............................ 6 A. Patent office’s financing ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The IP5 Offices Chapter 2 the IP5 OFFICES
    IP5 Statistics Report 2012 Chapter 2 - The IP5 Offices Chapter 2 THE IP5 OFFICES The IP5 is the name given to the group made of the five largest intellectual property offices in the world (EPO, JPO, KIPO, SIPO and USPTO). The IP5 structure has been established to contribute to improving the efficiency of the examination process for patents worldwide. As the world sees economic barriers between nations fade away, innovators want their intellectual creations to be protected concurrently in multiple major markets. An estimated 250 000 patent applications for the same inventions are filed each year in two or more of the IP5 Offices, contributing to increasing backlogs. To address this issue, the IP5 Offices are working together to reduce, to the maximum extent possible, the duplication of work which takes place at each office for these patent applications. Patents are used to protect inventions, and their counts have been recognised throughout the world as a measure of innovative activity. The following figure shows the prominent role played by the IP5 Offices in terms of the worldwide number of patents in force at the end of 2011. The data are based on the most recent worldwide patent information available from the WIPO Statistics Database9. Fig. 2.1 shows the number of patents in force by bloc in 2011. Fig. 2.1: PATENTS IN FORCE END OF 2011 R. Korea P.R. China 678 005 696 939 Japan 9% 9% 1 542 096 U.S. 20% 2 113 628 26% EPC states Others 2 005 741 852 403 25% 11% At the end of 2011, 89 percent of the 7.9 million patents in force were valid in one of the IP5 Offices jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical and Practical Aspects Related to Patent Quality in the Context of Standard Essential Patents
    TECHNICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS RELATED TO PATENT QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENTS - An exploratory case study for WIPO - Author: Chryssoula Pentheroudakis Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of WIPO or its Member States. The same disclaimer applies to the input provided by lead experts of the patent offices and standard developing organizations for the purposes of the study; albeit authoritative, their views and opinions do not necessarily represent the official position of the respective institutions. TECHNICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS RELATED TO PATENT QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 3 I. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 10 A. INTERFACE OF PATENTS AND STANDARDS ........................................................... 10 B. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................... 12 II. INTERFACE OF PATENT QUALITY AND STANDARDS .................................................. 14 A. PATENT QUALITY AND POLICY INSTRUMENTS FROM A PATENT OFFICE PERSPECTIVE..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Reform in Europe and the United States
    Forthcoming in “Science and Public Policy” vol. 36 nr. 8, October 2009. Patent Reform in Europe and the United States Susana Borrás Professor at the Copenhagen Business School, Denmark and at CIRCLE, Lund University, Sweden And Brian Kahin Senior Fellow at the Computer & Communications Industry Association in Washington, DC, and Research Investigator and Adjunct Professor at the University of Michigan School of Information Abstract The patent system has gained political attention in both Europe and the US as the core regulatory regime of an increasingly knowledge-based economy. Europe and the US alike have recently engaged in a series of reform efforts of their patent systems. These efforts reflect a shift from a legal and administrative emphasis on harmonization and globalization toward greater attention to issues of innovation and competition. However, the complexity of the systems, the asymmetric distribution of costs and benefits of change, the diversity of economic and political interests, and the high technical profile of this regulatory field, make reform difficult and slow. Whereas Europe focuses on regional integration, the US focuses on substantive and procedural solutions to perceived failings and abuses. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the trajectory of reform in each jurisdiction and to consider whether and how the experiences of each may be of value to the other. 1. Introduction Today, both Europe and the United States are engaged in patent reform but in very different ways. Europe is focused on structural reform in the name of market integration and efficiency, while the US is focused on substantive and procedural reform.
    [Show full text]