DOCSLIB.ORG

The European Patent with Unitary Effect: a Gateway to an Innovative and Competitive EU Economy?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The European Patent with Unitary Effect: a Gateway to an Innovative and Competitive EU Economy? Academiejaar 2012-13 DE TOTSTANDKOMING VAN EEN EUROPEES PATENT/OCTROOIRECHT The European Patent with Unitary Effect: A Gateway to an Innovative and Competitive EU Economy? Masterproef van de opleiding ‘Master in de rechten’ Ingediend door Johannes Cassiman (studentennr: 00806766) Promotor: Inge Govaere Commissaris: Leen Goossens PREFACE The writing of this paper has been challenging to me on many levels. Through many hours of research and contemplation I have gained valuable insights in the European patent system. I hope to put these insights into practice one day. In the spirit of European integration I have chosen to write my master thesis in English. It is the lingua franca of the patent community and the modern global economy at large. I hope that by writing this paper in English, it will have the potential to serve as a source of information for a broad public. For me personally it has definitely been an enrichment to write an academic dissertation in a language other than my native language. I would like to thank my master thesis promoter, prof. Inge Govaere for her inspiring lectures, which have sparked my enthusiasm for European Law, and for her guidance and trust in me. I especially thank my partner Anouck Dolphens for her continuous support and her help and caring when I most needed it. I would also like to thank my friends Laurens Naudts and Mathieu Vancaillie for their pleasant company during our master’s degree. Lastly I would like to thank my mother and father, who both supported me throughout my studies, each in their own ways. Ghent, 10 August 2013. i ii NEDERLANDSTALIGE SAMENVATTING De titel van deze master thesis ‘The European Patent with Unitary Effect: A Gateway to an Innovative and Competitive European Economy?’ kan als volgt vertaald worden: Het Europees octrooi met eenheidswerking: Een weg naar een innovatieve en competitieve economie voor de EU? Dit werk tracht een kritische analyse te brengen van de recentste evoluties in de totstandkoming van een octrooi voor de Europese unie. Het tracht een antwoord te geven op de volgende vragen: Wat is het belang van octrooien voor de economie van de Europese Unie? Hoe functioneert het bestaande systeem voor octrooien binnen de Europese Unie? Hoe presteert het bestaande stelsel voor octrooien in Europa in vergelijking met de systemen voor octrooibescherming in de belangrijkste concurrerende Economieën? Welke obstakels hebben de totstandkoming van een eengemaakte octrooititel voor de EU verhinderd? Wat zal het Octrooipakket brengen voor de werking van het Europese Octrooistelsel? Wat zijn de uitdagingen voor het Octrooipakket? iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... iv List of abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. vii 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2 The importance of patents for the European Union Economy ........................................................ 5 2.1 Short history of patent protection systems and patent economy ............................................. 5 2.2 The function of patents in market economies .......................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Economic theories of invention protection ...................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Main features of Patents .................................................................................................. 9 2.2.3 Patents as an incentive for R&D? .................................................................................. 10 2.3 The importance of unitary patent protection in general EU policy ....................................... 11 2.4 Patents and the Internal Market ............................................................................................. 13 3 Evaluation of the existing patent protection system in Europe ..................................................... 14 3.1 28 National Patents ................................................................................................................ 14 3.2 The bundled “European Patent” (EPC) ................................................................................. 16 3.2.1 The creation of an independent body ............................................................................ 16 3.2.2 The ‘European Patent’: What’s in a name? ................................................................... 19 3.2.3 Obtaining a European patent: From Filing to Grant ...................................................... 20 3.2.4 Language regime ........................................................................................................... 22 3.2.5 Harmonization of substantive law ................................................................................. 25 3.2.6 The Post-Grant Phase .................................................................................................... 26 3.3 Costs related to patenting ...................................................................................................... 28 3.4 Preliminary conclusion .......................................................................................................... 29 4 Comparison with major competing patent systems ....................................................................... 31 4.1 Three Competing Patent Systems .......................................................................................... 31 4.2 Key facts and figures ............................................................................................................. 31 4.3 Preliminary conclusion .......................................................................................................... 35 iv 5 Evaluation of past initiatives for a Community/Union patent ....................................................... 36 5.1 The division of European Patent law between the EPC and the Community Patent Convention ........................................................................................................................................ 36 5.2 The repeated failure of the Luxembourg CPC (1975, 1989) ................................................. 38 5.3 Failure of the “Agreement relating to Community patents” (1989) ...................................... 40 5.4 The Community Patent regulation proposal (CPR) (2000) ................................................... 42 5.5 Parallel efforts under the auspices of the European Patent Organisation .............................. 45 5.5.1 The EPLA ...................................................................................................................... 46 5.5.2 The London Agreement ................................................................................................. 47 6 The European patent having unitary effect.................................................................................... 48 6.1 Political evolutions towards the ‘Unitary Patent Package’ ................................................... 48 6.2 Legal Basis: Article 118 TFEU ............................................................................................. 51 6.3 Introduction to the enhanced cooperation mechanism .......................................................... 52 6.4 Council decision authorising enhanced cooperation ............................................................. 54 6.5 The Unitary Patent Package .................................................................................................. 55 6.5.1 The unitary patent regulation ......................................................................................... 57 6.5.2 The translation arrangements regulation ....................................................................... 61 6.5.3 Agreement on the Unified Patent Court ........................................................................ 64 6.6 Cost reductions introduced by the Unitary Patent Package ................................................... 67 6.7 Preliminary conclusion .......................................................................................................... 69 7 Challenges to the European patent with unitary patent ................................................................. 69 7.1 Legal Challenges ................................................................................................................... 69 7.1.1 Compatibility with EU law ............................................................................................ 69 7.1.2 Ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement ..................................................... 71 8 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 72 9 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 77 9.1 Treaties .................................................................................................................................. 77 9.2 EU Legal Acts ....................................................................................................................... 78 9.3 European Commission documents .......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Public Interest and the Construction of Exceptions to Patentee's Rights
    The Public Interest and the Construction of Exceptions to Patentee's Rights - A comparative Study of UK and German law by Marc Dominic Mimler A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen Mary, University of London 2015 Statement of Originality I, Marc Dominic Mimler, confirm that the research included within this thesis is my own work or that where it has been carried out in collaboration with, or supported by others, that this is duly acknowledged below and my contribution indicated. I attest that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge break any UK law, infringe any third party’s copyright or other Intellectual Property Right, or contain any confidential material. I accept that the College has the right to use plagiarism detection software to check the electronic version of the thesis. I confirm that this thesis has not been previously submitted for the award of a degree by this or any other university. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. Signature: Marc Dominic Mimler Date: 28 May 2015 2 Abstract The thesis analyses the concept of public interest with regards to exceptions to patent rights. It is submitted that patent rights are generally provided for a utilitarian purpose which is to enable technological advance. This goal is meant to be achieved by providing exclusive rights over the patented invention.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Opportunity: a Review of Intellectual Property and Growth
    Digital Opportunity A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth An Independent Report by Professor Ian Hargreaves May 2011 Contents Page Foreword by Ian Hargreaves 01 Executive Summary 03 Chapter 1 Intellectual Property and Growth 10 Chapter 2 The Evidence Base 16 Chapter 3 The International Context 21 Chapter 4 Copyright Licensing: a Moment of Opportunity 26 Chapter 5 Copyright: Exceptions for the Digital Age 41 Chapter 6 Patents 53 Chapter 7 Designs 64 Chapter 8 Enforcement and Disputes 67 Chapter 9 SMEs and the IP Framework 86 Chapter 10 An Adaptive IP Framework 91 Chapter 11 Impact 97 Annex A Terms of Reference 101 Annex B Stakeholders Met during Review of IP and Growth 102 Annex C Call for Evidence Submissions 105 Annex D List of Supporting Documents 109 Foreword When the Prime Minister commissioned this review in November 2010, he did so in terms which some considered provocative. The Review was needed, the PM said, because of the risk that the current intellectual property framework might not be sufficiently well designed to promote innovation and growth in the UK economy. In the five months we have had to compile the Review, we have sought never to lose sight of David Cameron’s “exam question”. Could it be true that laws designed more than three centuries ago with the express purpose of creating economic incentives for innovation by protecting creators’ rights are today obstructing innovation and economic growth? The short answer is: yes. We have found that the UK’s intellectual property framework, especially with regard to copyright, is falling behind what is needed.
    [Show full text]
  • IP Federation Review 2020 REVIEW Formerly Trends and Events, ISSN 2046-3049
    IP Federation 1 | IP Federation Review 2020 REVIEW Formerly Trends and Events, ISSN 2046-3049 www.ipfederation.com DECEMBER | 2020 Improving the intellectual property framework to meet the needs of innovative industry for a century Rising to the challenge… IP Federation members have stepped up to the plate to share their most valuable IP to help combat COVID-19 | P10 100 Artificial Intelligence and years Intellectual Property Fourth industrial revolution technology and its interplay with IP Federation’s centenary year | P14 the IP system | P40 2 | IP Federation Review 2020 Advancing industry’s view on intellectual property since 1920 The IP Federation was founded in 1920 as the Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation (TMPDF) in order to coordinate the views of industry and commerce in the United Kingdom, and to make representations to the appropriate authorities on policy and practice in intellectual property (IP) matters. AIMS ACTIVITIES The IP Federation’s aim is to bring about The IP Federation initiates proposals and improvements in the protection afforded by follows developments at national, European intellectual property rights throughout the world, and international levels across all fields of to the advantage of inventors, manufacturers and intellectual property. It has a close relationship consumers alike. Today the Federation has over with the Confederation of British Industry 40 IP-intensive member companies operating (CBI) and provides professional input on in a wide range of sectors and product groups, intellectual property matters to the CBI, as among which are many of the largest companies well as representing it in certain meetings in the UK, as well as smaller companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 1 DECLARATION of JOSEPH STRAUS in Support Re: 61
    Doc. 173 Att. 1 Association For Molecular Pathology et al v. United States Patent and Trademark Office et al Dockets.Justia.com C. V. Joseph Straus (Dr. jur, Dres. jur. h.c.), Professor of Law (Universities of Munich and Ljubljana); Marshall B. Coyne Visiting Professor of International and Comparative Law, George Washington University Law School, Washington D.C.; Honorary Director of the Intellectual Property Institute of the Tongji University, Shanghai, Honorary Professor Tongji University, Shanghai; Honorary Professor Huazhong University for Science and Technology, Wuhan; Honorary Director of the Chinese- German Institute for Intellectual Property, Huazhong University, Wuhan; Honorary Professor, University of Xiamen; Visiting Professor, Graduate Institute of Intellectual Property, Taipei; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Director Emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich (2001-2009); Former Chairman, Managing Board of the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC) (2003-2009) Born: 1938 in Trieste, Italy, received Law-Diploma 1962 from University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, and 1968 Dr. jur. (SJD) from University in Munich. Habilitation in 1986 at University of Ljubljana. Private practise from 1968 to 1977, since then with the Max Planck Institute. Nominated Full Professor of Intellectual Property Law, University of Ljubljana (1986-). Visiting Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, N.Y. (between 1989 and 1998); Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Toronto University (Spring 2005). Author or co-author of more than 300 publications in the field of intellectual property law, especially in the field of the protection of biotechnological inventions. Consultant to OECD, WIPO, UNCTAD, UNIDO, EC-Commission, World Bank, Scientific Services of the German Bundestag (Federal Parliament) and the German Government, as well as the European Parliament, the European Patent Organisation, the Swiss Government and the Swiss Federal Institute for Intellectual Property.
    [Show full text]
  • Speech Dr. H. P. Kunz-Hallstein
    JIPLP / GRUR Seminar, 6 March 2013 Welcome address by Dr. H. P. Kunz-Hallstein, GRUR President Ladies and Gentlemen, Welcome to Munich! It is my great pleasure to open this Celebratory Seminar at the venerable German Patent- and Trademark Office. Under the name Kaiserliches Patentamt – Imperial Patent Office – it started on 1 July 1877 in Berlin to receive and examine patent applications and reopened after the war in Munich on 1 October 1949. Here it continues – since 1 January 2009 under the presidency of our host, Mrs Rudloff-Schäffer – to live up to its traditional standards which caused the legendary Josef Kohler to call the Patent Office “Die Hauptkulturstätte dieses großartigen Rechtsgebiets” – “The principal cultural site of this great field of law”. Dear Mrs Rudloff-Schäffer, we are very grateful for your hospitality. Our personal acquaintance goes back to the time when we both were working at today’s Max-Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law. The good and trusting relations between our Association and you grew up when you decided to work for the Ministry of Justice in Bonn and later in Berlin where you held important responsibilities in the field of intellectual property law. Thank you also for honouring us with your presence and for addressing us. You share the interest and support to the development of European patent law with your predecessors amongst which, to name but one, the unforgotten Kurt Haertel, who went into history as a father of the European Patent Convention. We are also very honoured to have with us a high representative of the European Patent Office which has become – if I may say so – another “principal cultural site of patent law” in this country and which acts just next door; the EPO that examines and grants with great success since 1 June 1978 the European Patents and which will also issue the future European Patents with unitary effect that we will discuss today.
    [Show full text]
  • Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats Law Commission Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats Law Com No 346
    Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats Law Commission Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Patents, Trade Law Com No 346 Law Com No 346 39750 Cm 8851 Cover.indd 1 04/04/2014 17:25 The Law Commission (LAW COM No 346) PATENTS, TRADE MARKS AND DESIGN RIGHTS: GROUNDLESS THREATS Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty April 2014 Cm 8851 © Crown copyright 2014 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.2. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ or email [email protected] Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Print ISBN 9781474101974 Web ISBN 9781474101981 Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 04041402 39750 04/14 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum ii THE LAW COMMISSION The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman Professor Elizabeth Cooke David Hertzell Professor David Ormerod QC Nicholas Paines QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Elaine Lorimer. The Law Commission is located at 1st Floor, Tower, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AG.
    [Show full text]
  • International Patent Cooperation Union (Pct Union)
    E PCT/A/I/14 ORIGINAL: English WIPO DATE: April 14, 1978 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION GENEVA INTERNATIONAL PATENT COOPERATION UNION (PCT UNION) ASSEMBLY First Session (1st Extraordinary) Geneva, April 10 to 14, 1978 REPORT Adopted by the Assembly INTRODUCTION 1. The Assembly of the International Patent Cooperation (PCT) Union (hereinafter referred to as “the Assembly”) held its first (extraordinary) session in Geneva from April 10 to 14, 1978. 2. Up to the date of the opening of the session, 18 States (hereinafter referred to as “member States”) had deposited their instruments of ratification of, or accession to, the PCT with the Director General of WIPO. The following 12 member States were represented at the session: Brazil, Cameroon, France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Luxembourg, Madagascar, Senegal, Soviet Union, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States of America. The following six member States were not represented at the session: Central African Empire, Chad, Congo, Gabon, Malawi and Togo. 3. Pursuant to the decision referred to in paragraph 33 below, the following 12 States participated in the session as special observers: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Romania and Spain, whereas the following five States were represented by observers: Algeria, German Democratic Republic, Italy, Portugal, and Uruguay. 4. Pursuant to the said decision, two intergovernmental organizations, the European Patent Organisation and the African Intellectual Property
    [Show full text]
  • The Unitary Patent Package Court Competence and Substantive Law
    FACULTY OF LAW Lund University Jonas Lembke JAEM03 Master Thesis The unitary patent package Court competence and substantive law European Business Law 30 higher education credits 28 May 2014 Supervisor: Prof. Michael Bogdan Terms: unified patent court; unitary patent; private international law; European patent law 1 Contents ABBREVIATIONS 4 ABSTRACT 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 8 1 INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 Definitions 12 1.2 Brief history of the creation of a Community patent 13 1.2.1 Early days 14 1.2.2 The creation of a Community Patent 15 2 POST MILLENNIA DEVELOPMENT 18 2.1 The London agreement 18 2.2 Community patent continued 19 2.3 C-274/11 and C-295/11 - Spain and Italy v Council 20 2.4 C-146-7/13 Spain v Council 22 2.4.1 Judicial review 24 2.4.2 Legal base for UPR 25 2.4.3 Legal base for UPRL and the language regime 27 2.4.4 Discrimination on language and legal certainty 28 2.5 Opinon 1/09 and a European and EU Patent Court 32 2.6 Current state of affairs 34 3 THE CONTENT OF THE UNITARY PATENT 36 3.1 Regulation (EU) 1257/2012 36 3.1.1 Effects on national law 40 3.2 EPO Rules (draft) 41 4 THE UNIFIED COURT’S JURISDICTION 42 4.1 Brussels I 43 2 4.2 Brussels I amendment consernign UPC 47 4.3 Internal division of competences 49 4.4 Relationship with EPO opposition 50 5 DESIGNATION OF LAW & SUBSTANTIVE LAW 51 5.1 Union law 52 5.1.1 Rome I and Rome II 52 5.1.2 IPRED 55 5.1.3 Supplementary Protection Certificates 55 5.2 Substantive law in UPCA 56 5.2.1 Principles expressed in UPCA 56 5.2.2 Rights conferred and limitations 56 5.2.3 Rules of Procedures
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Review on Industrial Design Protection in Europe
    Legal review on industrial design protection in Europe Under the contract with the Directorate General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (MARKT2014/083/D) Legal review on industrial design protection in Europe Final Report - 15 April 2016 EN This study was carried out for the European Commission by For further information on this report, please contact: Mr. Jos Dumortier time.lex - information & technology law 35 rue du Congrès B-1000 Brussels - Belgium M: +32 477 33 82 96 [email protected] www.timelex.eu Core Team: Prof Jos Dumortier time.lex Davide Parrilli time.lex Prof Uma Suthersanen Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, Queen Mary, London Honorary Prof David Musker Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, Queen Mary, London; Consultant, Jenkins Patricia Ypma Spark Legal Network Peter McNally Spark Legal Network Jasmine Simpson Spark Legal Network Dr Lena Boucon Spark Legal Network Jo Steyaert Indiville Wouter Samyn Indiville Country Experts: Prof Clemens Appl Austria Vienna University of Economics and Business Susie P. Arnesen Denmark Løje, Arnesen & Meedom Prof Mario Franzosi Italy Avvocati Associati Franzosi Dal Negro Setti Prof Ignacio Garrote Spain Autonomous University of Madrid Prof Christophe Geiger, France CEIPI, University of Strasbourg Natalia Kapyrina Prof Pavel Koukal Czech Republic Masaryk University Dr Ewa Laskowska Poland Jagiellonian University Prof Marianne Levin Sweden Stockholm University Dr Vytautas Mizaras Lithuania Valiunas Ellex Mark Pohar Slovenia - Dr Ana Ramalho Portugal Maastricht University Allard Ringnalda Netherlands Klos cs Dr Dharamveer Singh Chauhan Luxembourg VP Fund Solutions (Luxembourg) SA Prof Guido Westkamp, Germany Queen Mary Intellectual Property Dr Marc Mimler Research Institute, Queen Mary, London DISCLAIMER The information and views set out in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Restructuring Intellectual Property Jurisdictions Post-Brexit: Strategic Considerations for the EU and Britain Alexandra George
    Brooklyn Journal of International Law Volume 43 | Issue 1 Article 27 12-12-2017 Restructuring Intellectual Property Jurisdictions Post-Brexit: Strategic Considerations for the EU and Britain Alexandra George Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil Part of the European Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Alexandra George, Restructuring Intellectual Property Jurisdictions Post-Brexit: Strategic Considerations for the EU and Britain, 43 Brook. J. Int'l L. 131 (2017). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol43/iss1/27 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. RESTRUCTURING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY JURISDICTION POST- BREXIT: STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION AND BRITAIN Alexandra George* INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 132 I. TERMINOLOGY AND ASSESSING OUTCOMES: A HARD OR SOFT BREXIT?................................................................................... 138 II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW-MAKING IN EUROPE....................................... 140 ". TBF 6J.+F .D ‘I/&F>>FJ&%_> 8(.+F(&Z’ ................................ 141 B. Territorial Rights
    [Show full text]
  • Výroční Zpráva 2008 Annual Report 2008
    obal_rocenka_08.pdf 30.3.2009 10:28:20 C VÝROČNÍ ZPRÁVA 2008 ANNUAL REPORT 2008 M Y CM MY CY CMY K 2008 2008 2008 2008 VÝROČNÍ ZPRÁVA ÚŘADU PRŮMYSLOVÉHO VLASTNICTVÍ ČESKÉ REPUBLIKY 2008 Zpracoval kolektiv Úřadu průmyslového vlastnictví České republiky 2008 Vydal Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví České republiky v roce 2008 ANNUAL REPORT Of THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC 2008 2008 Written by members of the staff of the Industrial Property Office of the Czech Republic Published by the Industrial Property Office of the Czech Republic in 2008 ÚŘAD PRŮMYSLOVÉHO VLASTNICTVÍ ČESKÉ REPUBLIKY 2008 ISBN 978-80-7282-079-5 INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC VÝROČNÍ ZPRÁVA / ANNUAL REPORT 2008 Obsah / Contents ÚVODNÍ SLOVO PŘEDSEDY ÚŘADU PRŮMYSLOVÉHO VLASTNICTVÍ --------------------------------------------3 INTRODUCTORY WORD OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY OFFICE ------------------------3 VÝKONNÉ ČINNOSTI ÚŘADU PRŮMYSLOVÉHO VLASTNICTVÍ ----------------------------------------------------7 EXECUTIVE ACTIVITIES OF THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY OFFICE---------------------------------------------------7 Kvalita práce -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 Quality ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 Patenty ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 Patents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
    [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]