A Study on the Target and Plan of the Design Patent Application to Protect Product Form - Focusing on the US Design Patent System

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 117
Author(s):  
Soo Min Seo ◽  
Sung Gul Hwang

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.


2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Graham ◽  
Saurabh Vishnubhakat

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.


2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis M. Solomon ◽  
Gregory J. Sieczkiewicz

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1318-1320
Author(s):  
Bao-Chi Chang ◽  
Shyh-Jen Wang
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oskar Liivak

49 UC Davis Law Review 1851-1880 (2016)Claims are at the heart of every major patent related issue. Most importantly, they determine a patent's potent rights of exclusion. Yet, we cannot predict how courts will set the exact boundaries of claims. This renders smooth operation of the patent system near impossible. For some time, scholars have theorized that a basic policy disagreement is a source of this uncertainty. Some judges favor narrower patents, some favor broader and judges will naturally tend toward their policy preference. Policy disagreements result in claim uncertainty. Recently, scholars Tun- Jen Chiang and Lawrence Solum have taken this view further arguing that this policy debate is the only problem preventing clear and consistent understanding of patent claims. That position is premature; there is another unnoticed and somewhat antecedent source of confusion. Patent law has not made clear what a patent claim (for lack of a better verb) claims. Patent applicants are surely delineating a boundary with their claims but patent law has not made clear what we are drawing the boundary around. When we write claims, exactly what question are we supposed to be answering? It is not clear whether a claim in a patent application is the statement "I claim to have invented the following things" or instead the request "I would like to claim exclusionary dominion over the following things." These are different in kind. Unfortunately both understandings have doctrinal support and both are operating simultaneously yet confusingly in patent law today. The proper way to handle patent claims depends on which view is correct. The uncertainty and disagreements that are plaguing patent law can be explained not just as a policy dispute but instead as confusion over this basic understanding of patent claims. This article outlines these two conflicting views, their implications for patent law and how we should resolve the ambiguity. Correctly understood, though claims are central in determining exclusion, we should nonetheless interpret initial patent claims as the statement "I claim to have invented the following things."


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document