scholarly journals Patenty na drugie medyczne zastosowanie – niekończąca się historia wątpliwości i kontrowersji

2017 ◽  
pp. 7-36
Author(s):  
Helena Żakowska-Henzler
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Patent System ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Medical Procedures ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
National Patent ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Second Medical Use

The notion of “second or further medical use” encompasses inventions whose the subject-matter is new medical use of a known product (substance). It means that the product as such, as well as its other medical use, are a part of the state-of-the-art. In our times patent protection of this kind of inventions is common but the concept and model of this protection are differentiated. They mainly depend on whether it is allowed or banned to patent medical procedures (medical methods). The article concerns the patent protection of the second medical use under European patent system, i.e. the system based on EPC and on national patent systems of the countries which are the parties to this Convention. In all these systems, patenting medical methods is banned. The aim of the article is to present the process of establishing the model of patent protection of the second medical use in these systems, and to discuss some of the main hesitations and controversies resulting from this model. They mainly concern the question of compliance of this model with the rules and concepts of patent protection which until recently seemed indisputable.The subject matter and purpose of this kind of inventions evoked also additional questions and problems. In particular, the discrepancy between the patent protection of these inventions and the system of reimbursement of pharmaceuticals, which is common in the countries-EPC parties, is clearly visible. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the apparent difficulties in protecting such patents illustrate the negative consequences of treating legal instruments as tools for achieving specific objectives, but operating in a legal and economic vacuum.

8. Patent Protection and Exploitation

2019 ◽  
pp. 178-198
Author(s):  
Justine Pila ◽  
Paul L.C. Torremans
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
Patent Grant

Once a European patent has been granted the nature and scope of the protection it confers must be determined. In considering such protection this chapter focuses on four issues of central importance to that end. The first is the effects of a patent, namely, the territories in and term for which it is valid. The second is the object of protection, namely, the subject matter that the public is excluded from using during the term of its protection. The third is the nature of protection, namely, the uses of the subject matter from which the public is excluded. And the fourth is the limitations to protection, namely, the uses of an invention that the law permits notwithstanding its protection by patent grant.

6. Patentable Subject Matter

2019 ◽  
pp. 139-161
Author(s):  
Justine Pila ◽  
Paul L.C. Torremans
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Industrial Application ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Patentable Subject Matter

This chapter considers the subject matter for which European patents may validly be granted under the European Patent Convention (EPC), and the substantive European (EPC and EU) legal principles governing their identification and conception. To this end it discusses the two-fold role of the requirement for an invention in European patent law: first, as a means of filtering protectable from non-protectable subject matter; and second, as a means of denoting the object of patent protection, i.e. that which must be new, inventive, susceptible of industrial application, and clearly and sufficiently defined and described in the patent specification, and that with reference to which the scope of the patent monopoly is defined under Article 69 EPC. It also discusses the range of public policy-based exclusions from European patentability, and their relation to the requirement for an invention itself.

scholarly journals Patenting Aspects of Natural Products

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Santhosh Kumar. M ◽  
Dr. M. Surendhar Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Natural Products ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
European Law ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Definite Time ◽  
Exclusive Right

A patent is a monopoly right granted to a Patentee for a definite time period, during which he/she is given the exclusive right to stop anyone else from using his/ her invention without approval. The European law may allow patents to be granted to natural products, where such products may not be eligible for patent protection in USA, the European patent office strict assessment of priority and added subject matter, it is important that all subject matter is included in the first application for the invention.

Application of competition law and the law relating to unfair competition

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winfried Tilmann
Keyword(s):  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
A Company

The acquisition of an EPUE may be impermissible under competition law only in special exceptional cases. This conceivably might hold true where a recognizable strategy of obstruction (Art 102 TFEU) is pursued by a company holding a dominant position with the aim of walling in competitors, without such patent proprietor having any intention of using the subject matter of patent protection himself. Also conceivably falling under the heading of inadmissible obstruction is the acquisition of a large number of patents by which the acquiring entity pursues the aim not of exploiting them but instead of using such acquisition to its own competitive advantage. The acquisition of such IP rights used merely for blockading purposes may qualify as part of the aforementioned strategy of obstruction and as such violate Art 102 TFEU. This may make it impermissible to invoke the patent: the competitor affected can raise the objection of abuse of a dominant position, which the UPC is in the position to consider (Art 32(1)(a) UPCA). As a general rule, such violation does not give rise to an obligation of cancellation because, if held by others actually using it themselves, it may turn out that the patent is no longer ‘flawed’.

4. Introduction to European Patent Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 99-119
Author(s):  
Justine Pila ◽  
Paul L.C. Torremans
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
European Patent ◽  
European Law ◽  
European Patent Convention ◽  
Unified Patent Court ◽  
Unitary Patent

This chapter introduces the European law of patents and related rights with a discussion of the nature of patents as limited-term monopoly rights granted in respect of new, inventive, and industrially applicable inventions and the routes to obtaining patent protection in Europe. It then considers the existing European patent system established by the European Patent Convention 1973/2000, including its basis in state-based conceptions of IP territoriality, and the challenges presented to that system by globalization and developing technology. And finally, it discusses the long-standing pursuit of a unitary patent and unified patent court for Europe, including the reasons for each, and the features of the proposed Unitary Patent Package of 2012/2013.

Patents and Diagnostic Methods in the U.S.: The Subject Matter Eligibility Trap

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Saladich Nebot
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
General Application ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Social Importance

Diagnostic methods have been gaining medical recognition and social importance as innovations that can be useful to provide individuals with a diagnosis, prognosis or prediction with regard to a condition that they currently have or that they are in risk of developing. Despite the great amount of resources deployed to produce these health technologies and their potential benefits for healthcare systems and patients or prospective patients alike, their exclusive protection in the United States has faced resistance from patent examiners and courts on the basis that diagnostics constitute a dubious innovation. Inconsistent arguments used for the refusal of patent protection have led to a labyrinth where innovators in the diagnostics sector cannot reasonably expect their application or their protection after the patent is in place to stand.  This paper aims to convey the doctrine of subject matter eligibility as applied to diagnostic methods and the relevant guidelines and case law. In doing so, it aims to depict the pitfalls resulting from the general application of a non-patentability rule to diagnostics, and to suggest opportunities still available for innovators to overcome uncertainty by filing compliant applications while maximizing the likeliness of enjoying protection once the patent is awarded.

Growth companies and procedural safeguards in European patent litigation

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krista Rantasaari
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
Patent System ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Court System ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
Start Up ◽  
Unified Patent Court ◽  
Procedural Safeguards ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
Unitary Patent

The unitary patent system with the establishment of the Unified Patent Court will lead to unitary patent protection covering most European Union countries. Moreover, it will lead to litigation with the same geographical reach. One potential concern related to increasing litigation is the so-called ‘patent trolls’ (non-practicing entities) that purchase patents for the purpose of portfolio building or company financing. One of the key expressed justifications of the unitary patent system was to support small- and medium-sized enterprises by securing them easier and wider access to patents. The aim of this article is to examine procedural safeguards from the perspective of the start-up and growth companies. These safeguards protect start-up and growth companies when acting as defendants. As a corollary, they weaken the enforcement mechanisms from the perspective of the plaintiff. The safeguards addressed in this article are fee shifting, preliminary injunctions, and bifurcation. As the Unified Patent Court system is still evolving, the current state of European patent litigation in key jurisdiction countries (Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands) is analysed. This article explores how these safeguards evolve in the unitary patent regime and their potential to reduce uncertainty for start-up and growth companies when acting as defendants.

scholarly journals ON CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISM IN TOURISM

2015 ◽  
pp. 84-90
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Tourism Industry ◽  
Mitigation Strategies ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation ◽  
Critical Approach ◽  
The Subject

A state-of-the-art scientific evidence is provided that supports the need of tourism scholars to adopt a critical approach when evaluating the various aspects of climate change. The extent of uncertainties regarding the subject matter does not allow those who study climate change and tourism to dismiss substantial doubts and counterevidence with the usual response about "consensus" or "climate deniers." Human-induced climate change is a phenomenon not yet well understood, and thus advocating greenhouse gas mitigation strategies for the tourism industry is precipitous and likely to inflict enormous costs and involve serious pitfalls.

scholarly journals R&D Investments, EPO Patent Applications and the Economic Heterogeneity within the EU

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-191
Author(s):  
Zuzana Potužáková ◽  
Jan Öhm
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Patent ◽  
Patent Applications ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Year 2000 ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In addition to internationalization and growing volumes of international trade in goods, the importance of expenditure on research and development (R&D) has grown significantly. National patent protection has become rather insufficient with increased international trade in goods, which has resulted in the importance of the international patent protection. The main aim of the article is to analyse the relation between R&D investment and the number of patent applications filed with the European Patent Office (EPO) after the year 2000, when the EU‘s Lisbon Strategy was launched. The authors have focused primarily on the differences among the EU macro-regions, which are based on the socioeconomic models. Conclusions imply that one percentage point of R&D expenditure generates roughly 100 EPO applications and the findings also show that individual macro-regions have the identical scattered data. However, dispersions in the individual groups of the EU Member States after the year 2000 differ. The EU Member States are starting to vary significantly in the intensity of R&D support also within each macro-region, thus disparities increase within the EU. Therefore, the attitude to GERD is considered to be an important factor contributing to the greater economic disparities within the EU.

scholarly journals Intangible machines: Patent protection for software in the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-37
Author(s):  
Brad Sherman
Keyword(s):  
Information Technology ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Information Technology Industry ◽  
Technology Industry ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law

Intellectual property law has been interacting with software for over sixty years. Despite this, the law in this area remains confused and uncertain: this is particularly evident in patent law. Focusing on U.S. patent law from the 1960s through to the mid-1970s, this article argues that a key reason for this confusion relates to the particular way that the subject matter was construed. While the early discussions about subject matter eligibility were framed in terms of the question “is software patentable?”, what was really at stake in these debates was the preliminary ontological question: what is software? Building on work that highlights the competing ways that software was construed by different parts of the information technology industry at the time, the article looks at the particular way that the law responded to these competing interpretations and how in so doing it laid the foundation for the confusion that characterizes the area. When engaging with new types of subject matter, patent law has consistently relied on the relevant techno-scientific communities not only to provide the law with a relatively clear understanding of the nature of the subject matter being considered; they have also provided the means to allow the law to describe, demarcate, and identify that new subject matter. The inherently divided nature of the nascent information technology industry meant that this was not possible. As a result, the law was forced to develop its own way of dealing with the would-be subject matter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document