scholarly journals Active Promotion of Useful Arts

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-260
Author(s):  
Brian Harris
Keyword(s):  
Social Benefit ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Patent Infringement ◽  
Collective Knowledge ◽  
Patent Owner ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
Civil Matter

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” To this end, Congress created the copyright system “[t]o promote the Progress of Science” and the patent system for promoting the progress of useful arts. The American patent system can be though of as a vehicle for converting an intangible idea into a form of property. Since the beginning of the American patent system, social benefit has been a key component of the decision to grant a patent. Some view patent rights as a form of monopoly, termed a “patent monopoly.” Because early Americans had strong anti-monopoly sentiments, their decision to institute a system that would allow for a patent monopoly demonstrates a recognition of the importance of furthering collective knowledge. However, a patent can be essentially worthless if its owner is unable to enforce it. While a patent confers the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling whatever the patent claims, this right has been restated by some to actually be more akin to “a right to try to exclude” others. One reason is that the right to exclude can only be exercised on the condition that the patent owner also has the financial means to exclude. There is no criminal penalty for patent infringement. Instead, patent infringement is strictly a civil matter and patent owners are responsible for the costs associated with enforcement. Thus, if a patent owner is unable to afford the cost of litigation, the right to exclude might as well not exist.

Contemporary Views on Economics of Patents

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shubha Ghosh
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
Patent Owner ◽  
The Public ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
Patent Landscape ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
Exclusive Right

A patent is a legal right to exclude granted by the state to the inventor of a novel and useful invention. Much legal ink has been spilled on the meaning of these terms. “Novel” means that the invention has not been anticipated in the art prior to its creation by the inventor. “Useful” means that the invention has a practical application. The words “inventor” and “invention” are also legal terms of art. An invention is a work that advances a particular field, moving practitioners forward not simply through accretions of knowledge but through concrete implementations. An inventor is someone who contributes to an invention either as an individual or as part of a team. The exclusive right, finally, is not granted gratuitously. The inventor must apply and go through a review process for the invention. Furthermore, a price for the patent being granted is full, clear disclosure by the inventor of how to practice the invention. The public can use this disclosure once the patent expires or through a license during the duration of the patent. These institutional details are common features of all patent systems. What is interesting is the economic justification for patents. As a property right, a patent resolves certain externality problems that arise in markets for knowledge. The establishment of property rights allows for trade in the invention and the dissemination of knowledge. However, the economic case for property rights is made complex because of the institutional need to apply for a patent. While in theory, patent grants could be automatic, inventions must meet certain standards for the grant to be justified. These procedural hurdles create possibilities for gamesmanship in how property rights are allocated. Furthermore, even if granted correctly, property rights can become murky because of the problems of enforcement through litigation. Courts must determine when an invention has been used, made, or sold without permission by a third party in violation of the rights of the patent owner. This legal process can lead to gamesmanship as patent owners try to force settlements from alleged infringers. Meanwhile, third parties may act opportunistically to take advantage of the uncertain boundaries of patent rights and engage in undetectable infringement. Exacerbating these tendencies are the difficulties in determining damages and the possibility of injunctive relief. Some caution against these criticisms through the observation that most patents are not enforced. In fact, most granted patents turn out to be worthless, when gauged in commercial value. But worthless patents still have potential litigation value. While a patent owner might view a worthless patent as a sunk cost, there is incentive to recoup investment through the sale of worthless patents to parties willing to assume the risk of litigation. Hence the phenomenon of “trolling,” or the rise of non-practicing entities, troubles the patent landscape. This phenomenon gives rise to concerns with the anticompetitive uses of patents, demonstrating the need for some limitations on patent enforcement. With all the policy concerns arising from patents, it is no surprise that patent law has been ripe for reform. Economic analysis can inform these reform efforts by identifying ways in which patents fail to create a vibrant market for inventions. Appreciation of the political economy of patents invites a rich academic and policy debate over the direction of patent law.

scholarly journals Expert Examination of the Use of a Dependent Invention and a Dependent Utility Model Under the Law of the Russian Federation

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3.14) ◽  
pp. 340
Author(s):  
Vladimir Evgenievich Kitaiskiy ◽  
Evgeniy Nikolaevich Petrov ◽  
Vera Vladimirovna Shvedova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Utility Model ◽  
Patent Owner ◽  
Utility Models ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

The article deals with such objects of patent law as inventions and utility models, the use of which by patent holders in some cases is limited by the rights of other patent owners in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as amended on March 12, 2014. Such inventions and utility models are called dependent. In fact, these are improvements to other inventions and utility models, to which the exclusive right applies. The patent owner of such a dependent object of patent law may legitimately use his invention or his utility model only upon obtaining the right to use another (main) object of patent law or at its alienation from the legal owner. For this, it is necessary to reveal the dependence of one's object of patent law on another (main) object. The article shows how it is possible to identify such dependence under the existing patent legislation of the Russian Federation.  

scholarly journals Registration requirements for application rights

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
desi ratnasari
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Patent Application ◽  
Director General ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
Tax State ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Protection Period

Intellectual works that are aesthetic creations such as copyright and industrial design are relatively easy to obtain patent rights. Including the discovery of computer program methods, presentations on information found were easier to obtain patent licenses. Even so, there are also intellectual works that apparently cannot be patented. Here are intellectual works that cannot be patented: If the other party obtaining the transfer of rights from the inventor will have a patent for 20 years from the first day of the date of receipt. The rest, after 20 years the exclusive rights will become a public domain. Public domains are intended for the general public, of course, they continue to process licenses to patent holders. Patent rights in intellectual property rights have territorial principles. The territorial principle in this case the patent rights only applies in the country of the inventor submitting a patent application and given. Submissions are made by sending a letter of request to the Director General of Intellectual Property Rights (DJHKI). If the inventor obtains patent rights in Indonesia, for example, the patent rights obtained are not valid or do not have patent rights in other countries. The obligation of the inventor to obtain patent rights has the right to pay an annual fee. The fee is part of the cost of maintaining the patent up to the last year of the protection period. Patents will be legally lost if not paid for three consecutive years. The cost of maintaining patent rights is determined by PNBP Non-Tax State Revenues at the Ministry of law and human rights. Keywords: Invertor Obligations, PNBP and HAM

scholarly journals Penghapusan Paten Terdaftar di Indonesia: Perkembangan dan Penyebabnya

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-168
Author(s):  
Alif Muhammad Ardani
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Research Development ◽  
Maintenance Period ◽  
Patent Holder ◽  
Patent Owner ◽  
Industry Research ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Exclusive Right

This article discusses the cancellation or revocation of patents registered in Indonesia and their causes. Revocation or cancellation of a patent is a form of law enforcement of patents that have been registered, because the invention given a patent is not eligible for a patent or the patent owner does not carry out his obligations. With a revocation, the exclusive right of the inventor or patent holder to use his invention will be lost. The results showed, first, the revocation of patents so far was dominated by patents and not simple patents, and most of them were from abroad. However, this fact does not mean that domestic patents are far more applicable or more compliant with statutory provisions, but it must also be related that the number of patents registered in Indonesia so far is mostly from abroad. Second, the revocation of patents was dominated by patent holders who do not carry out patent maintenance fees. This is because patents that have been registered are considered unproductive so it is difficult to apply in the industry; research development that requires a large enough cost so that it results in accumulation of patent maintenance payments; and the transition of provisions regarding the cost and maintenance period of patents from the old Patent Law (2001) to the new Law (2016) which is relatively unknown. Abstrak Artikel ini membahas perkembangan pembatalan atau penghapusan paten terdaftar di Indonesia beserta faktor yang menyebabkannya. Penghapusan atau pembatalan paten merupakan suatu bentuk penegakan hukum terhadap paten yang sudah terdaftar, disebabkan invensi yang diberi paten tidak layak mendapatkan paten atau pemilik paten tidak melaksanakan kewajibannya. Dengan pembatalan atau penghapusan, maka hak eksklusif inventor atau pemegang paten untuk menggunakan invensinya akan menjadi hilang. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan, pertama, pembatalan atau penghapusan paten terdaftar sejauh ini didominasi pada paten dan bukan paten sederhana, dan sebagian besar berasal dari luar negeri. Namun demikian fakta ini tidak berarti bahwa paten dalam negeri jauh lebih aplikatif atau lebih mematuhi ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan, melainkan juga harus dikaitkan bahwa jumlah paten terdaftar di Indonesia sejauh ini memang sebagian besar berasal dari luar negeri. Kedua, penghapusan paten terdaftar didominasi oleh pemegang paten yang tidak melakukan biaya pemeliharaan paten. Hal ini bisa jadi disebabkan oleh paten yang telah terdaftar dinilai tidak produktif sehingga sulit diterapkan dalam industri; pengembangan riset yang memerlukan biaya yang cukup besar sehingga mengakibatkan akumulasi pembayaran pemeliharaan paten; dan peralihan ketentuan mengenai biaya dan masa pemeliharaan paten dari UU Paten lama (Tahun 2001) ke UU baru (Tahun 2016) yang relatif belum dipahami.

scholarly journals Should Patent Infringement Require Proof of Copying?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Patent Infringement ◽  
Important Paper ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
System Today ◽  
The Way

Patent law gives patent owners not just the right to prevent others fromcopying their ideas, but the power to control the use of their idea even bythose who independently develop a technology with no knowledge of thepatent or the patentee. In an important paper, Samson Vermont challengesthis received wisdom, arguing that independent invention should be adefense to patent infringement, just as it would be in copyright or tradesecret cases.Independent invention has much to recommend it. The most significantproblem facing the patent system today is the rise of so-called "patenttrolls" - entities who do not manufacture products or transfer technology,but wait and assert patents against successful companies who independentlydeveloped and manufactured the technology without knowledge of the patent.An independent invention defense would eliminate the troll problem in onefell swoop. Nonetheless, I have concerns. While I agree with Vermont thatwe can learn a great deal from the fact of independent invention, I am notyet persuaded that we can be sure that an independent invention defensewill have no undue effect on incentives. Complicating this difficultempirical question is the likelihood that the effects of an independentinvention defense would be different in different industries. Further, anindependent invention defense will significantly change any market forpatent rights that might exist or be developing today.In light of this, I suggest four steps we might take that take advantage ofVermont's insights without moving all the way to an independent inventionsystem. First, we should change the definition of willful infringement toexclude independent inventors. Second, we should adopt some form of a prioruser right. Third, we should give simultaneous invention greater credencein determining whether inventions are obvious. Finally, we might considerwhether the defendant independently invented as a factor in decidingwhether to grant injunctive relief and the conditions to impose on suchrelief.

scholarly journals Patents found on the Accer Aspire U27 product, the all-in-one Desktop

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
khoiriazulhijah
Keyword(s):  
Closed Loop ◽  
Cooling System ◽  
Patent Application ◽  
Patent Owner ◽  
Cooling Fan ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
The Right ◽  
Metal Layers

Product patents from Accer namely Accer Aspire U27 launched by Accer on March 14, 2018 this product has an elegant and attractive design in accordance with current trends. The all-in-one desktop has a 27-inch Full HD screen that also supports touchscreen with multitouch up to 10 fingers. In addition, the elegant design is also supported by a V-shaped stand that is modern and space-saving.The Aspire U27 Design Accer is made of metal and plastic, but both materials have identical metal layers, so you won't pay attention to the different materials used in the contour.The entire system is held above an aluminum stand, which has adjustable Y-shaped legs. A stand is one part of the system that needs to be assembled after unboxing, but the base attaches to the holder with a simple finger screw, so you don't even need a screwdriver.The Accer Aspire U27 makes things quieter by removing the cooling fan that most systems use. Instead, the all-in-one is equipped with a fanless pipe cooling system, called Liquid Loop, which makes everything cool with a closed cooling system.When the liquid circulates through a heat pipe, the liquid evaporates under heat, condenses when it flows through the closed loop, and returns to do it again, dissipating heat when spinning.The result is a system that does not need a cooling fan, and runs quieter than a competing system.Then the Accer Aspire U27 features multimedia features with the ExaColor Accer feature to produce accurate colors.Then to produce quality sound, this all-in-one desktop also has a subwoofer that is behind the screen.The Acer Aspire U27 uses a 7th generation Intel Core processor, the Core i7 7500U. Then this device has 8GB of DDR4 RAM and 2TB of HDD storage.To improve performanceThe HDD, the Acer Aspire U27 also has an Intel Optane SSD as a caching solutionB.CONCLUSION The conclusion1. Patents in each product have patent rights, namely inventors of their inventions in the field of technology, with a certain length of time or give approval to others to carry it out.2. Inventor is someone who alone or several people who jointly implement ideas that want to produce an invention or product.3. The patent holder is someone who is the patent owner or the party who receives the right from the patent owner.4. What should be avoided before the application of a patent is submitted, namely to publish in general the results of research or discovery within a period of more than 6 (six) months before the patent application is submitted5. 3 ways of disclosing a research / discovery result can occur:1. Decomposition of techniques with published writings.2. Decomposition of the product or how to use it in public3. Product exhibition, which is in the form of an international exhibition in Indonesia or abroad that is official or recognized as official.6. What is meant by claim the most important part of an invention (invention) that is requested for protection, and in the claim disclosed all the technical advantages of the inventionThe Accer Aspire U27 will change everything you know about previous PC devices. Whatever your needs or preferences, from starting to work to playing games, Accer Aspire U27 is ready to be the PC that will faithfully accompany you.

Enforcing Patent Rights

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip W. Grubb ◽  
Peter R. Thomsen ◽  
Tom Hoxie ◽  
Gordon Wright
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent Infringement ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

This chapter discusses patent law enforcement in the UK, US, Continental Europe, and Asia, first considering the rules on infringement. In the UK, for instance, patent infringement is not a crime, but a tort. Essentially, the right given by a patent is the right to sue for infringement. While this is true for all countries having an Anglo-Saxon legal system and also for many others, there are some countries in which patent infringement is a criminal offence. With regard to procedure, matters of patent law are under the sole jurisdiction of federal courts in the US. In the UK, nearly all infringement actions are heard by the courts and regulated by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. In Continental Europe, most of the evidence is written, rather than oral, and the role of the judge is seen more as that of an investigator than that of a referee.

scholarly journals PROBLEMS ABOUT PATENT RIGHTS

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Reza Pahlevi
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Specific Problem ◽  
The State ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Public Examination ◽  
Patented Invention ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
Opening Up

Patent is an exclusive right granted by the State to the inventor of the results of his invention in the field of technology, which for a certain period of time carries out his own invasion or gives his consent to other parties to implement it. (Law 14 of 2001, Ps. 1, v. 1). Meanwhile, the meaning of the Invention and Inventor (contained in the above definition, also according to the law, is):•Invention is an Inventor idea that is poured into a specific problem-solving activity in the field of technology can be a product or process, or an improvement or development of a product or process. (Law 14 of 2001, Ps. 1, v. 2)•Inventor is a person who or some person who jointly carries out an idea poured into an activity that produces an invention. (Law 14 of 2001, ps. 1, v. 3)The word patent comes from the English patent, which originally came from the word patere which means opening up (for public examination), and also comes from the term letter patent, which is a decree issued by the kingdom that gives exclusive rights to individuals and certain business actors. From the definition of the word patent itself, the patent concept encourages inventors to open knowledge for the betterment of society and instead, inventor gets exclusive rights for a certain period. Given that the patent does not regulate who has to do a patented invention, the patent system is not considered a monopoly right.Explanation of the Patents and Systems Applied in Indonesia Regarding the Application for Patent Rights

Issues in IP management to support open access in collaborative innovation models

First Monday ◽  
2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Boettiger
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Patent Owner ◽  
Web Based ◽  
The Public ◽  
Collaborative Innovation ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Ip Management

Building Web–based collaborative environments to encourage innovation in patentable technology provides different challenges than those found in the realm of copyrightable material. Cyberinfrastructure can be designed to encourage a free exchange of information and ideas that produces well–documented benefits for collaborators. But this may come at the cost of foregone patent rights, as the disclosure of information can limit options to patent. If the goal is open access, though, some argue that the predisposition toward the public domain is an important element. This essay argues that achieving openness in fields of patentable technology may require cyberinfrastructure that is designed to accommodate flexibility in the management of intellectual property. First, the potential value of patents is explored as they support the goal of open access. For some technologies, collaborative cyberinfrastructure may inadvertently restrict open access because placing a technology in the public domain removes the leverage a patent owner has to influence downstream activity. Second, this paper considers the potential role of defensive publishing in cyberinfrastructure; a lack of control over how the inventions are published may make it easier for others to surround the published technology with patents, ultimately limiting open access. In some instances, strategic defensive publishing may be warranted in order to place technologies more securely in the public domain. Both of these discussions explore the likelihood that designing cyberinfrastructure for innovation in patentable technology fields demands a keen understanding of the interface between the public domain and patents, and also a balance between retaining options for IP management and enabling the fluidity of collaboration.

scholarly journals REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATION RIGHTS

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
desi ratnasari
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Patent Application ◽  
Director General ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
Tax State ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Protection Period

Intellectual works that are aesthetic creations such as copyright and industrial design are relatively easy to obtain patent rights. Including the discovery of computer program methods, presentations on information found were easier to obtain patent licenses. Even so, there are also intellectual works that apparently cannot be patented. Here are intellectual works that cannot be patented: If the other party obtaining the transfer of rights from the inventor will have a patent for 20 years from the first day of the date of receipt. The rest, after 20 years the exclusive rights will become a public domain. Public domains are intended for the general public, of course, they continue to process licenses to patent holders. Patent rights in intellectual property rights have territorial principles. The territorial principle in this case the patent rights only applies in the country of the inventor submitting a patent application and given. Submissions are made by sending a letter of request to the Director General of Intellectual Property Rights (DJHKI). If the inventor obtains patent rights in Indonesia, for example, the patent rights obtained are not valid or do not have patent rights in other countries. The obligation of the inventor to obtain patent rights has the right to pay an annual fee. The fee is part of the cost of maintaining the patent up to the last year of the protection period. Patents will be legally lost if not paid for three consecutive years. The cost of maintaining patent rights is determined by PNBP Non-Tax State Revenues at the Ministry of law and human rights. Keywords: Invertor Obligations, PNBP and HAM

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document