Inventions and Innovations Related to Better Results in Intestinal Anastomosis: a Patent Review

Objective: To evaluate new techniques and improvements in surgical instruments related to intestinal anastomosis procedures. Methods: A search was conducted on the free database of patents from the National Institute of Industrial Patent Office (INPI) and The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Were analyzed all occurrences between 2012 and 2016 related to experimental surgery and intestinal anastomosis. The requests for patents were examined individually and the data collected was the nationality of the applicant, if was physical (PP) or legal (LP) person and if was innovation or invention. At the end, a comparative analysis between the two institutions was performed. Results: In INPI was found only 5 occurrences. All of them were deposited by legal entity and were inventions. In addition, only one was a national request. In USPTO database, 65 occurrences met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 48 were national applications and only 5 were filed by physical person. Conclusion: More requests were found in US database, predominating national trustee and greater solicitation to inventions than Brazilian database. The main applications for patents are invention of surgical instruments, the development of new biological glues and improvement of mechanical sutures. Keywords: patents, gastroenterology, surgical anastomosis.

Download Full-text

Rethinking Patent Law's Presumption of Validity

10.31235/osf.io/knvp3 ◽

2016 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Mark Lemley

Keyword(s):

The United States ◽

Decision Makers ◽

Patent Office ◽

High Likelihood ◽

Long Run ◽

Patent Review ◽

Tier System ◽

Initial Process ◽

Patent Validity ◽

States Patent

The United States Patent and Trademark Office is tasked with the job ofreading patent applications and determining which ones qualify for patentprotection. It is a Herculean task, and the Patent Office pursues itsubject to enormous informational and budgetary constraints. Nonetheless,under current law, courts are bound to defer to the Patent Office'sdecisions regarding patent validity. In this Article, we argue for reform.Deference to previous decision-makers is appropriate in instances wherethose previous decisions have a high likelihood of accuracy, and the patentsystem should endeavor to create processes that fit this mold. But grantingsignificant deference to the initial process of patent review isindefensible and counter-productive. Patents should be vulnerable tochallenge until and unless they are significantly evaluated in aninformation-rich environment. At that point, they will have earned andtherefore should be accorded a presumption of validity. Such an approachwould better serve the patent's systems long-run incentive goals, and itwould give patent applicants better incentives to file for genuineinventions but leave their more obvious and incremental accomplishmentsoutside the patent system's purview. Here, we therefore suggest thecreation of a two-tier system of patent validity, with patents that aresubject to intensive scrutiny accorded a strong presumption of validity,while untested patents are left to be evaluated more fully in court.

Download Full-text