Foreign Patent Decisions and Harmonization: A View of the Presumption Against Giving Foreign Patent Decisions Preclusive Effect in United States Proceedings in Light of Patent Law International Harmonization, 18 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2018) (original) (raw)
Related papers
2014
One of the greatest challenges facing patent holders is the enforcement of their rights against foreign (non-US) infringers. Jurisdictional rules can prevent patent holders from filing patent infringement suits where they have the greatest likelihood of success in enforcement, such as where the infringer is located, has its seat, or holds its assets. Instead, patent holders must file lawsuits in the country where the infringed patent was issued. But filing a patent lawsuit in a US court against a non-US infringer may be subject to various difficulties associated with the fact that US substantive patent law (particularly as regards its territorial scope) and conflict of laws rules are not always compatible and interoperable with the conflict of laws rules of other countries. Such insufficient compatibility and interoperability can lead to US judgments not being enforceable outside the United States. In the Hague Conference's Judgments Project, which the Conference relaunched in 2012, the United States has an opportunity to negotiate internationally-uniform conflict of laws rules to improve cross-border litigation, including cross-border patent litigation. This Article provides data on cross-border patent litigation that can be used to show the extent of the cross-border patent litigation problem and assist in assessing the appropriate degree of US involvement in the Judgments Project.
A Comparative Study of U.S. and Japanese Patent Systems
In an era of global competition, adequate protection of intellectual property in Triad regions of the world, particularly in Japan, has become increasingly important. This study focuses on the differences and similarities in patent practices between Japan and the United States. British and German patent practices are also examined to offer a balanced comparison. Findings indicate that the Japanese patent practices seem to discriminate against foreign applicants with longer pendency periods than for domestic applicants, while the U.S., German, and British patent practices appear to discriminate against foreign applicants with lower patent grant ratios than for domestic applicants. . Intellectual property rights broadly include patents, copyrights, and trademark laws. Disputes over patent practices are the most prominent, and will be a focal point of the study. Statistics reveal some interesting points. About 45% of the U.S. patents are currently held by foreigners ]. Eighteen percent of all U.S. patents granted in 1986 were awarded to Japanese. The top three companies
Declared essential patents : the US patent system in an international perspective
2016
Firms often collaborate to produce inter-operability standards so that independently designed products can work together. When this process takes place in a Standard Setting Organization (SSO), participants are typically required to disclose any intellectual property rights (IP) that would be infringed by a proposed standard, and asked for a commitment to license their essential IP on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. This paper describes the IP disclosure process, and provides an overview of a publicly available IP disclosure dataset that the authors have compiled using the archives of thirteen major SSOs. We use these new data to illustrate several major trends in standards development, and to show how “declared essential” patents di↵er from randomly matched patents from the same vintage and technology classes. Declared essential patents receive more citations and are much more likely to be litigated than a typical patent from the same technology class. However, these...
Cybaris, 2012
The requirement that an invention have utility is one of the most fundamental of the patent laws. In the United States, for example, the concept of utility is rooted in the Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, gives Congress the power to grant exclusive rights to inventors in order "[t]o promote the progress of Science and useful Arts. " Other jurisdictions recognize utility in the form of inventions that have "industrial applicability" or are "capable of exploitation in industry," with all of these terms and phrases generally viewed as being synonymous. Historically, nearly every jurisdiction has excluded some type of invention from patentability as lacking utility. A common and enduring utility-based exclusion is the perpetual motion machine, with the justification being scientific: because perpetual motion is not physically possible, an invention which claims such a feature cannot in fact work and therefore fundamentally lacks utility. Jurisdictions also make exclusions on policy grounds. In Europe, for example, methods of treating human and animal bodies are not patentable, but the justification for doing so, which previously was based on lack of industrial applicability, is now expressly linked to public health policy. In an ever-more global economy, inventions are at the heart of commercial transactions that know no geographic boundaries and are increasingly valued for their job and wealth creation. Obtaining patent protection in multiple jurisdictions therefore is increasingly common. At least to reduce costs and increase efficiency, patent owners, policymakers and practitioners alike have sought increased inter jurisdictional cooperation and patent law harmonization in the patent examination and granting process. Recent publications, however, have identified a developing trend in Canada in which Canadian courts and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office are interpreting and applying the historically well-settled and generally harmonized utility requirement in a new and different way, in particular with respect to patents for pharmaceutical products. As a result, applicants for Canadian patents must meet conditions and overcome hurdles not required by other major patent offices. This article will compare Canada's implementation and treatment of the utility requirement with the implementation and treatment practiced in the United States and Europe-two jurisdictions that represent prevailing approaches to utility and also constitute a major share of the world's patenting activity. The article will first examine the statutory and judicial situation in each of the jurisdictions, including a review of the major international treaties and agreements to which each is subject. It will then present a case study that looks at the judicial challenges brought against various members of a single patent family in the United States, Europe, and Canada, and compare the results of those challenges. This analysis, we believe, reveals that the recent shift in Canada's approach to the utility requirement conflicts with international norms and thus presents implications for patentees, patent law harmonization, and international treaty obligations.
Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 1994
A patent 8 represents a government grant of a "monopoly" 9 of limited duration' 0 on the use of an invention or discovery. Although patent laws vary from country to country, if an invention is novel, useful, and not obvious, and if the invention fits within the statutory categories of protectable inventions, it is generally patentable. 11 Much of the controversy in international patent law surrounds variations, from country to country, in patentable categories. Because the owner of a patent can charge a royalty for the use of the patented invention, if a country refuses to recognize a patentable category, such a refusal will necessarily affect the cost of using a given technology in that country. B. Western Position on Patent Protection Versus the Position of Developing Nations Western countries generally believe that a patent system provides the best overall incentive to encourage invention. 12 Although this assertion is difficult to prove,' 3 it forms the basis for the exten-8. For a general explanation of patent law, see ARTHUR R. MILLER & MICHAEL H. DAVIS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHT (2d ed. 1990). 9. Strictly speaking, a patent is not always a monopoly. Many countries grant a right to exclude others from using an invention. "Every patent shall contain.., a grant... of the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention throughout the United States." 35 U.S.C. § 154 (1988). A true monopoly would grant the exclusive right to use an invention. In many cases, however, the right to exclude is tantamount to a monopoly. 10. The term of a patent is usually 15 to 20 years. The period in the United States is 17 years. See 35 U.S.C. § 154 (1988). 11. "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent thereof."
A Comparative Study of Legal Criteria for Patentability in Different Jurisdictions
A Comparative Study of Legal Criteria for Patentability in Different Jurisdictions, 2022
A patent is focused on protecting inventions within a given jurisdiction, it is a legal figure applied to novel scientific developments. Mexico and Canada conform (2) out of (3) countries in the North American block, which have increasingly formed collaborative and commercial ties, whether through foreign investments or exchange in human labor 1. This results in the possibility of foreign investors from each country seeking to venture commercially in each jurisdiction, some of which might have the need of patenting a given product, substance, or novelty procedure. As each jurisdiction has its own set of legal principles that govern how the law around patents shall be applied as each one belongs to a different legal family: Mexico (Civil Law) and Canada (Common Law). This research will emphasize on examining the criteria Intellectual Property Officials in both countries follow to assess patentability for any invention according to each country's applicable law.
Perfecting US Patentable Subject Matter - Merging the European Approach and the American Principles
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019
This article illuminates the recent developments in the field of the subject matter eligibility of the inventions and offers a resolution to the crucial issues in the field. The solution for resolving of the crucial issues combines the current U.S. approach of affirmative defining of the scope of the subject matter of the patents and the approach of the European Patent Convention, of both affirmative and negative defining of the patentable subject matter. In particular, the article provides a draft legislation as a more sustainable and precise solution that emerged from the comparison between the experience of the participants in the U.S. patent prosecution and litigation procedure and the experience of the participants in the patent procedure in the European Patent Organization. The legislative proposal includes the current text of Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act enhanced with a new part concerning the excluded invention matter from the scope of the patentable subject matter. Several court decisions involving patentable subject matter eligibility of inventions in the field of business methods, software and life sciences, make this approach necessary and the resolution of the overall problem pressing. Also, the article critiques the proposed amendment of Section 101 of the Patent Act currently being considered in the U.S. Congress and explains how the proposed draft legislation in the paper offers a better solution.