scholarly journals Awarded with Economic Growth, from Weak to Strong Patent Legislation: Legal Study with Regard to China

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 6-15
Author(s):  
Shaghayegh Haji Bagher Naeeni
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
International Standards ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Critical Legal Study ◽  
Chinese Market ◽  
Legal Study ◽  
Chinese Patent

This paper provides a critical legal study on evaluation of patent system in China from the year1980, which is known as the beginning of Chinese modern intellectual property law including patent law till 2016 that China achieved third place in Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) internationally for the highest patent applications according to World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).  Moreover, researcher will go through few important push factors for Chinese patent legislator who developed stronger Patent law to attract more national and international inventors for investing in Chinese market without hesitation of their patent rights being infringed due to weak legislation. In other words, how China realized that being in the era of globalization for improving economic growth, it should consider at least minimum international standards in its own patent legislation. Hence, the method used in this paper will be purely a doctrine method, because the researcher will be conducting the critical legal study on mentioned aspects, which involves collecting of data from primary and secondary sources. The process involved in this research is a collative process. However, still there is room for improvement in current Chinese patent system, which will be discussed in this paper. All in all, the researcher concluded that concept of globalization is undeniable in national as well as the international market in order to have a reasonable economic growth for the same reason China had considered having stronger patent legislation in order to save its position in the market and also to increase its own rate of economic growth. On the other hand, the paper concludes by putting forward suggestions for modifying Chinese patent system.  

International Seminar – Contributions to the Development Agenda on Intellectual Property Rights

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Celia Castro ◽  
Maria Beatriz Amorim Bohrer
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
International Seminar ◽  
Development Agenda

TRIPS as it stands is against the interests of developing countries, and needsreform. In developing their own patent law, developing countries need to recognizethat there is now near consensus among informed observers that patentlaw and practice have, in some cases, overshot, and need to be reformed. Thatis the burden of the recent NAS/NRC report on “A Patent System for the 21stCentury.

scholarly journals INDONESIAN PATENT SYSTEM: AN OVERVIEW

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 26-30
Author(s):  
Prabodh M. ◽  
Chaitanya Prasad K. ◽  
Ashish S. ◽  
Suthakaran R. ◽  
Abhijit K.
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Grace Period

Intellectual property protection is a one type of protection to the innovator from their creative efforts. On November 1, 1991, the Indonesian Parliament passed Law No. 6/1989 on Patents. The new law came into effect on August 1, 1991. The patenting system in Indonesia is discussed using some recent statistics and their fees, patent exclusivity, litigation, grace period. As of 1989, there have been over 13,000 applications for temporary patent registration, 96% of which were of foreign origins. None of the applications were denied, were ever granted because no patent Law existed. In this paper discussed brief introduction about Indonesia patent system.

12 The Intellectual Property–Competition Interface

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng Thomas K
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Process Innovation ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The One ◽  
Competition Interface

This chapter focuses on the interface between intellectual property and competition laws. The interface is the most complex between competition law on the one hand and patent law on the other hand. Developing countries only engage in what can be called laggard innovation, which includes acquisition of tacit knowledge, imitation, and process innovation. This may call for a reconsideration of the appropriate approach to the patent–competition interface in developing countries because laggard innovations, with the exception of process innovation, are not the subject of protection of the patent system. If laggard innovations are not the subject matter of protection of the patent system, the patent-competition rules should have little relevance for the quest for innovations in developing countries. In fact, one can argue that the patent system is an impediment to one of the main sources of laggard innovation, imitation, and that the patent-competition rules should be adjusted in a way to facilitate it if one were serious about adopting a pro-growth approach to competition law enforcement in developing countries. This implies that for developing countries that do not produce patentable innovations, there is no need to balance between patent and competition policies. There is in fact no conflict between these two policy objectives. Intellectual property rights and Market-sharing and customer allocation Enforcement and procedure

How Fair is Patent Litigation in China? Evidence from the Beijing Courts

2019 ◽  
Vol 241 ◽  
pp. 247-261
Author(s):  
Chenguo Zhang ◽  
Jin Cao
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
The Third ◽  
Upper Limit ◽  
Chinese Patent ◽  
The Right ◽  
Trade Partners

AbstractBy conducting field research and analysing judgments delivered in Beijing courts from 2004 to 2011, we find that the popular notion held by China's trade partners of the inadequacy of intellectual property protection is only partly supported by the empirical evidence. The likelihood of winning lawsuits is higher for foreign than domestic plaintiffs and the extremely low damages ruled by Chinese courts are due to particular causes. Courts lack consistent methods to calculate incurred losses in intellectual property right (IPR) infringements and consequently routinely apply the statutory damages whose upper limit is restricted by legislation. Efforts by Chinese legislators to enhance compensation by lifting the upper limit of awardable statutory damages in the Third Amendment of Chinese Patent Law (2008) did not seem to have an effect on our sample. Chinese policymakers should instead focus on the cause of the issue by providing more implementable guidelines for courts to calculate losses. Courts need to develop applicable conventions for calculating damages, based on objective criteria of how much compensation ought to be payable, which is also the basis of calculating reasonable statutory damages. Thus, the new provision of the “right of information” on pirated goods proposed by the ongoing Fourth Amendment provides a significant weapon to combat counterfeiting.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): Patent Law Treaty, Regulations Under the Patent Law Treaty, and Agreed Statements by the Diplomatic Conference

2000 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 1047-1083 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization

“Office” means the authority of a Contracting Party entrusted with the granting of patents or with other matters covered by this Treaty;

Development of the intellectual property service in Ukraine on the example of the Institute of oilseed crops of the NAAS

2021 ◽  
pp. 137-145
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Industrial Property ◽  
Intellectual Activity ◽  
Oilseed Crops ◽  
Utility Models ◽  
The Creation

The history of development of industrial property of Ukraine, objects of intellectual property and relations which arise at their creation and use are considered. The main results of scientific research on the creation of intellectual property of the Institute of Oilseed Crops of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine (hereinafter IOC NAAS) are highlighted and analyzed. The research was conducted as part of the ongoing monitoring of intellectual property legislation on the legal protection of research results of the IOC NAAS and as part of marketing and patent research to position the institution as an originator of oilseeds. The purpose of the research is to investigate changes in the legislation on industrial property of Ukraine, intellectual property objects and relations that arise during their creation and use, to analyze the main results of scientific research on the creation of intellectual property objects of IOC NAAS (2001–2020). In the process of research, for a detailed study of the stages of the formation of patent legislation, legislative and regulatory acts of Ukraine were used concerning the regulation of intellectual activity and intellectual property, materials from professional periodicals, articles and abstracts published in scientific collections and materials of scientific and practical conferences, Internet resources, monographs and printed works of scientists, manuals, patents and inventions for useful models of the IOC NAAS. Research methods – quantitative, qualitative and comparative analysis. Methodology – according to the algorithm of constant monitoring and conducting patent and marketing research. The term "intellectual property" was first used in the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), adopted in Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and since then the term has been used in international conventions and legislation in many countries. The day of the adoption of the Law of Ukraine «On Property» in 1991 is considered to be the beginning of the formation of the legislation of Ukraine on intellectual property. This law for the first time recognized the results of intellectual activity as objects of property rights. At present, ensuring the implementation of state policy in the field of protection of rights to inventions and utility models in Ukraine is provided by the Ukrainian Institute of Intellectual Property (Ukrpatent) and belongs to the Ministry of Economic Development of Ukraine. IOC NAAS – a leading scientific institution in genetics, biotechnology, breeding and cultivation of basic and niche oilseeds, which focuses on the development of theoretical foundations of breeding, creation of modern breeding material, development of optimal agricultural techniques for its cultivation, organization of primary and industrial seed production, for the development and improvement of technical means and machines for separation, purification and waste-free processing of oilseeds. During the existence of the IOC NAAS, scientists have created 87 objects of patent law. The novelty and originality of scientific developments are confirmed by patents for inventions and utility models. At the time of writing, the Institute supports 23 patents.

Patents and Related Rights

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan L. Burk
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Technological Innovation ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Technical Innovation ◽  
Utility Models ◽  
Alternative Solutions ◽  
Theoretical Issues ◽  
Widespread Interest ◽  
Plant Breeders Rights

Patents, along with the related systems of utility models and plant breeders’ rights, are the forms of intellectual property most closely associated with technological innovation. Some form of patent system is found in essentially all modern states, and patents have become a ubiquitous feature of the global legal and technical environment. Patents and related rights are therefore highly dynamic areas of law, displaying constant evolution of doctrine simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions. The shifting diversity of national approaches offers an opportunity to consider how characteristic themes and problems of patent law have been approached from different perspectives, and lend a sense of better, worse, and alternative solutions to the problem of prompting technical innovation. Consequently, this chapter surveys particular doctrinal problems in patent law and allied laws, uses them to illustrate both broad theoretical issues endemic to such laws, and ties those issues to ongoing controversies that have attracted widespread interest.

scholarly journals PARTICULARITIES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT IN GEORGIA

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 311
Author(s):  
Maka Salkhinashvili ◽  
Giuli Giguashvili
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Property Development ◽  
Industrial Property ◽  
General Terms ◽  
The World ◽  
The Law

The article examines the nature and significance of intellectual property in Georgia. The issue is highly interesting both from theoretical and practical viewpoints. The Law on patents was adopted in Georgia in 1999 and has undergone many changes since then. The Law was significantly improved as a result of 2010 amendments. In general terms, the intellectual property is a field of law, which governs and defines the property rights and personal non–property rights in the field of creative activity. To explore these issues, the article makes reference to a number of earlier assumptions, historical context and past approaches. Some authors use the term ‘patent pyramid,’ comparing it to a casino, where three persons are engaged in a state or sometimes inter–state innovative game. The article looks at the issue in the context of Georgia. Georgia declared independence in 1991, which also marked the beginning of new era in the field of inventions. Georgia’s National Centre of Intellectual Property – Georgian Patent – was established in 1992. Georgia is a member of The World Trade Organization (WTO) established in 1993. Hence the UN–approved requirements of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) related to the intellectual property are binding upon Georgia, as are the requirements pertaining to the industrial property. We conclude that Georgia’s Patent Law needs further improvements, as the improved law is likely to contribute to the intellectual property in Georgia and lead to significant reduction in a number of disputes in the given field.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document