Invalidity and Amendment of Granted Patents

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip W. Grubb ◽  
Peter R. Thomsen ◽  
Tom Hoxie ◽  
Gordon Wright
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Technical Competence ◽  
Japanese Patent ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Patent Examiner ◽  
The Uk

This chapter focuses on the law governing the validity and amendment of patents in the UK and US. The grant of a patent does not guarantee its validity. The chance that a patent will be held to be valid if challenged depends on the completeness of the search performed; the strictness of examination of the patent in the patent office; the legal and technical competence of the patent examiner; the chance of intervention by third parties during the patent office proceedings; and the pro- or anti-patent attitude of the national courts. Patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), Japanese Patent Office, or US Patent and Trademark Office are subject to a relatively rigorous substantive examination. However, patents in other countries, such as South Africa, Belgium, or even the Netherlands, are granted after a formal examination, without any investigation as to whether the claimed invention meets the patentability criteria.

Standards for Independent Oversight

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico van Eijk
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Data Retention ◽  
Digital Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Intelligence Services ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Point Of Departure

The point of departure for this chapter is the decision of the European Court of Justice in the Digital Rights Ireland case, which annulled the European Data Retention Directive, in part because the use of retained data was not made subject to independent oversight. Next, it examines judgments from the national courts of the Netherlands and the UK, also focusing on the independent oversight issue, declaring invalid the data retention laws of those two countries. From the Digital Rights Ireland case and others, seven standards for oversight of intelligence services can be drawn: the oversight should be complete; it should encompass all stages of the intelligence cycle; it should be independent; it should take place prior to the imposition of a measure; it should be able to declare a measure unlawful and to provide redress; it should incorporate the adversary principle; and it should have sufficient resources.

17. Patentable subject matter

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Industrial Application ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Technical Effect ◽  
Patentable Subject Matter ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk

This chapter deals with patentable subject matter and the ways in which it is regulated under the Patents Act 1977 and the 2000 European Patents Convention (EPC). More specifically, it discusses five criteria that an invention must satisfy to be patentable, including the requirement that it must be capable of ‘industrial application’, and that patents are not granted for immoral inventions. The chapter also considers two different approaches that are used when deciding whether an invention falls within the scope of section 1(2)/Article 52(2): the ‘technical effect’ approach in the UK and the ‘any hardware’ approach applied by the European Patent Office. Finally, it examines how the law deals with a number of specific types of invention and looks at possible reforms, particularly in relation to computer programs and computer-related inventions.

16. Procedure for grant of a patent

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Patent Application ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Patent Cooperation Treaty ◽  
Key Features ◽  
The Uk

This chapter explains the processes involved in granting patents as well as the factors that applicants must take into account when deciding whether to patent an invention in the UK. The role of patent agents and the choice of route to take to secure grant of the patent are considered. The chapter then documents the procedures in the application for a patent, paying particular attention to some of the key features of the UK and European Patent Office patent application processes together with the Patent Cooperation Treaty. It also describes situations in which applicants and patentees are able to amend their applications and the restrictions under which such amendments operate. Finally, it looks at a number of proposals to reform the patent procedure.

Inventorship, Ownership, and Compensation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip W. Grubb ◽  
Peter R. Thomsen ◽  
Tom Hoxie ◽  
Gordon Wright
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Academic Inventions

This chapter considers the law governing inventorship, ownership, and compensation. It first discusses inventorship in the UK, the US, and the European Patent Office. It then looks at the issue of ownership of the rights in an invention, covering common law provisions, contracts of employment, statute law in the UK, statute law in Germany, and academic inventions. This is followed by a discussion of compensation for employee-inventors in the UK, Germany, and other countries. The remainder of the chapter explains the right to apply for a patent and to be granted a patent, co-ownership of patents, disputes over the correct ownership of an invention, and the recordal and transfer of ownership.

scholarly journals A Delphi developed syllabus for the medical specialty of sport and exercise medicine

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (8) ◽  
pp. 490-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Humphries ◽  
Rod Jaques ◽  
Hendrik Paulus Dijkstra
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Potential Barrier ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Specialist Training ◽  
Exercise Medicine ◽  
Sport And Exercise ◽  
The Uk

Training in the medical specialty of sport and exercise medicine is now available in many, but not all countries. Lack of resources may be a barrier to the development of this important specialty field and the International Syllabus in Sport and Exercise Medicine Group was convened to reduce one potential barrier, the need to develop a syllabus. The group is composed of 17 sport and exercise medicine specialists residing in 12 countries (Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Qatar, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and USA). This paper presents the first phase of this project covering the domains and general learning areas of a specialist training syllabus in sport and exercise medicine.

Can a Patent Be Granted for an AI-Generated Invention?

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (11) ◽  
pp. 1123-1129
Author(s):  
Andreas Engel
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Policy Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Rule Out ◽  
Formal Rules

Abstract Three patent offices had to answer the question of whether a patent can be granted for an invention for which an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system called DABUS was named as inventor. All applications were dismissed, but for different reasons. While the European Patent Office focused on formal rules, the UK Intellectual Property Office considered more substantive aspects, and the US Patent and Trademark Office relied on statutory language. From a policy perspective, the decisions find support in the fact that there is no clear consensus for AI to be recognized as an inventor, and that difficult questions would ensue if this were accepted. From a doctrinal perspective, the decisions do not rule out the patentability of AI-assisted inventions in general, as it remains possible to designate a human inventor when AI has merely facilitated the inventive process. This leaves the question of who should own a patent for an AI-generated invention, if patentability for such inventions is considered desirable. A possible solution could be to grant ownership directly to the company operating or owning the AI.

19. Inventive step

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
State Of The Art ◽  
The State ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Inventive Step ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Way

This chapter examines the requirement that an invention is patentable if it involves an ‘inventive step’ or ‘non-obviousness’, that is, the invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, and the difficulty of deciding whether an invention is obvious (non-inventive) or non-obvious (inventive). It first considers the approach used by the European Patent Office to deal with the obviousness of a patent and compares it with that in the UK. It then explains the concept of the state of the art in an obviousness examination before concluding with an assessment of the way in which the inventive step has been addressed in a number of different circumstances.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document