Teva's Impact on the US National Patent System ("NPS"): The Mayo/Biosig/Alice ("MBA") Framework Made It a Rough Diamond -- But Rough for Ever? Teva Cuts This Diamond and Thus May Create a Historic Mega-Trend in SPL, also Internationally

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sigram Schindler
Keyword(s):  
Patent System ◽  
The Us ◽  
National Patent

Global patent system rethink is required ahead

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Patent Pools ◽  
Technology Firms ◽  
Diffusion Of Knowledge ◽  
The Us

Subject Outlook for the global patent system. Significance Innovation and the diffusion of new technology contribute to GDP growth and consumer welfare. Intellectual property rights such as patents are designed to promote innovation by rewarding inventors with a right of exclusion that prevents others from making, selling or using their invention for a fixed period of time, unless they pay a licence fee. Patent registration is increasing rapidly both within advanced and emerging countries, as the latter learn about its value. However, there is a conflict between rewarding innovators with monopoly rights and promoting the diffusion of knowledge at low cost. As more products and techniques are protected by patents, there is concern that the system is inhibiting rather than promoting growth. Impacts The US patent system supports innovation, while the EU system is less clearly defined with unitary patent protection. Licensing will need to be easily obtained at reasonable prices with terms conducive to both technological and business model exploration. Governments and supranational authorities will need to ensure that patent pools can operate within sympathetic but fair antitrust regimes. Regulatory authorities will need to ensure that patent pools cannot become tools for collusive activity by leading technology firms. Firms will need to monitor constantly legislation and judgments relating to their industry in countries in which they operate.

scholarly journals Of Smart Phone Wars and Software Patents

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Graham ◽  
Saurabh Vishnubhakat
Keyword(s):  
Smart Phone ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Competing Values ◽  
Administrative Reforms ◽  
The Us ◽  
Software Patents ◽  
Over Time ◽  
The Web

Among the main criticisms currently confronting the US Patent and Trademark Office are concerns about software patents and what role they play in the web of litigation now proceeding in the smart phone industry. We will examine the evidence on the litigation and the treatment by the Patent Office of patents that include software elements. We present specific empirical evidence regarding the examination by the Patent Office of software patents, their validity, and their role in the smart phone wars. More broadly, this article discusses the competing values at work in the patent system and how the system has dealt with disputes that, like the smart phone wars, routinely erupt over time, in fact dating back to the very founding of the United States. The article concludes with an outlook for systematic policymaking within the patent system in the wake of major recent legislative and administrative reforms. Principally, the article highlights how the US Patent Office acts responsibly when it engages constructively with principled criticisms and calls for reform, as it has during the passage and now implementation of the landmark Leahy–Smith America Invents Act of 2011.

Impact of the US Patent System on the Promise of Personalized Medicine

2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis M. Solomon ◽  
Gregory J. Sieczkiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Personalized Medicine ◽  
Patent System ◽  
The Us

Post-grant patent review in China: an empirical analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-375
Author(s):  
Renjun Bian
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
China Trade ◽  
Patent Review ◽  
International Patent ◽  
The Us ◽  
Comprehensive Picture ◽  
Chinese Patent ◽  
Rational Ignorance

With a series of policies to stimulate innovation and patent activities, China has become a world leader in both patent applications and patent litigation. These major developments, together with the escalated US-China trade tensions, have made China an integral but controversial venue for international patent protection. The Chinese patent system, especially its detailed practice and cases, is in need of a comprehensive empirical study. This article analyzed 8766 Chinese patent invalidity cases decided between 2014 and 2016, which, together with my prior work on patent infringement lawsuits, offers a comprehensive picture on how the bifurcated patent system in China works. First, it found that only a small number, about 2.0 percent, of Chinese patents are ever subject to infringement or invalidity disputes, shedding light on the patent office's rational ignorance of a patent's validity at first place. Second, it found that the invalidity rate for invention patents in China (54.6%) was lower than in many other countries, such as the US (83.9%) and Germany (73%), indicating that the Chinese patent system is more pro-patentee than once believed. Third, it raised the question of Chinese patents’ quality based on various characteristics of these cases, including patent types and petitioners’ entity status.

scholarly journals Divided Performance of Patented Methods in Australia: A Call to Codify Procured Infringement

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johnathon E Liddicoat
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Patent Infringement ◽  
The Us

The US case Akamai Technologies Inc v Limelight Networks Inc brought the patent world’s attention to the issue of if and how a patentee may enforce a method claim against a competitor who performs some of the steps in the method but leaves other steps to be performed by arms-length clients – a scenario known as divided performance. The case raised the possibility that divided performance effectively enables a competitor to use a patented method – yet avoid infringement. This article finds that no Australian patent infringement mechanism clearly creates liability for divided performance; however, it also reveals that the seldom invoked, common law mechanism known as procured infringement plausibly does. As a result, this article argues that procured infringement should be codified in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) to resolve ambiguity surrounding whether it creates liability, thereby generating certainty for the myriad stakeholders who use the patent system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document