Federal Circuit affirms Nilssen's 15 patents unenforceable for inequitable conduct

The US Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court finding thatit did not abuse its discretion in holding 15 of Nilssen's patentsunenforceable due to his intentional withholding of materialinformation during patent prosecution from the US Patent Office(‘USPTO’).     

US Patent and Trademark Office refuses registration of flavour trade mark

In a case of first impression, the Trademark Trial and AppealBoard of the US Patent and Trademark Office has held that theflavour orange is not registrable for use with quick-dissolvingantidepressant tablets and pills.     

Maximizing patent term in the USA

Legal context: The standard term of a US utility patent is twenty years fromits filing date, but the term may be extended for various reasons.The statutory Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) scheme automaticallyextends the term of a patent by the number of days of delayin prosecution attributable to the United States Patent andTrademark Office (USPTO), minus the number of days of delayattributable to the applicant. By avoiding actions or inactionsthat result in delay, a US patent applicant may maximize theterm of the resulting patent. This article is intended particularlyfor practitioners outside the US who are instructing a US practitioner. Key points: Delay by the applicant chiefly results when more than threemonths elapses from the mailing of a USPTO action or requirementto receipt of the applicant's response or when a paper is filedat an inappropriate time. Such delays may be avoided or minimizedby promptly sending instructions and required documents to theUS patent attorney or agent in charge of the case. Time spentin an ultimately successful appeal of a final rejection willincrease PTA. Errors in PTA calculations by the USPTO may becorrected upon filing a request. Practical significance: PTA can be a potent source of extended US patent term, especiallywhen the applicant takes care not to introduce delay into theexamination process.     

美国《专利客体适格性审查指南》的最新修订及评述

因应美国联邦法院的判例变动,美国专利和商标局在近十年里频繁修订《专利客体适格性指南》(PEG),前五年的内容变化较大,但随着2014年之后Alice/Mayo测试法的确立,近五年的修订集中在对该测试法的小修小补之上。2019年两次最新修改就是完善该测试法、提高法律适用稳定性和一致性的努力。此次改革成果主要表现在归纳、提炼了近年司法判例,对抽象概念等司法例外予以类型化,而且细化了判断“指向司法例外”的步骤,从整体考虑司法例外是否被“整合”成适格的实际应用。这为审查员和业界提供了较清晰的指引。但如何明晰关键概念的范围,判断成功“整合”成适格客体,尚需很多努力。而且,以往可能会被驳回的许多专利申请,可以藉着新指南的要求进行修改,从而通过客体适格性的审查。我国新修订的《专利审查指南》所构建的客体审查制度是我国现有专利实践的总结,与美国虽有不同,但落脚点实质相似。     

The USPTO economics research agenda

This article outlines the creation of the Chief Economist’s Office at the US Patent and Trademark Office in March, 2010, and the publication of the Office’s first economics research agenda. In describing the elements of the research agenda—the role of intellectual property (IP) in economic growth, performance, and employment; IP and technology standards; the economics of trademarks; the economics of United States Patent and Trademark Office initiatives; and IP and the markets for technology—we both review the state of knowledge and outline ongoing initiatives and future possibilities. The article also suggests opportunities for ongoing public–private research collaboration on these issues, particularly between government and academic researchers.     

滥用专利权的内涵及其制止措施

通过论述在我国建立制止滥用专利权体系的必要性,围绕滥用专利权行为的内涵以及制止滥用专利权行为的措施这两个核心问题,介绍了《巴黎公约》和《TRIPS协定》的有关规定以及美国制止滥用专利权行为的实际做法,在此基础上分析我国反垄断法和专利法有关规定的含义.     

生物技术对专利制度的挑战与中国专利法修改探讨

蓬勃发展的现代生物技术已对传统专利制度形成了挑战。美国率先对基因、转基因技术授予专利 ,欧盟随之对生物技术发明出台法律保护指令 ,中国虽早有水稻等基因技术产品的发明与大面积种植 ,却在 2 0 0 1年修订的专利法中回避了生物技术发明的可专利性 ,使生物技术陷入努力开发但得不到充分法律保护的窘境。因此 ,阐明生物技术对专利制度的挑战 ,比较欧盟立法 ,探讨中国生物技术专利保护对生物技术发展的影响 ,及生物技术专利的国际合法性 ,对中国专利法修改提出意见 ,当前亟具意义     

遏制专利蟑螂——评美国专利新政及其对中国的启示

2013年6月4日,美国奥巴马政府宣布了旨在打击专利蟑螂、提高专利质量、促进专利创新的5项行政措施和7项立法意见。同一天,总统行政办公室发布报告《专利主张与美国创新》,描述并分析了采取立法及行政措施的必要性。美国国会2012年和2013年两度提出旨在遏制专利蟑螂恶意诉讼的《保护高技术创新者免遭恶意诉讼法案》。这些举措,意味着美国正在推行专利新政。结合中国国情,提出以下6项建议:(1)建立知识产权危机预警机制;(2)提高专利审查质量;(3)跟踪专利实施情况;(4)健全专利服务体系;(5)加强知识产权领域反垄断规制;(6)限定专利诉讼主体资格。     

UK software patents – Get with the program

Computer-implemented inventions feature in almost every field of technology, and although improvements to computer-based devices are routinely made in software, the circumstances in which patent protection is available remains unclear. The patentability of software varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Worryingly, there are variations in form, if not in substance, between patent offices working from the same legal source. Against the background of a sea change in the US position, there is the prospect of a clarification of the European Patent Office approach that will provide a platform for consistency in Europe. This paper focuses on the UK position, highlights the tension between the UK and the EPO and considers the key questions before the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal.     

我国《专利法》第四次修正之评析

法律的修正是经济社会发展的必然产物。《专利法》的第四次修正发生在我国从"专利大国"向"专利强国"迈进的关键历史当口。在第六次科技革命方兴未艾、国家科技强国战略布局不断推进、国际竞争格局加速调整这三重因素的客观背景下,此次修法从微观、中观和宏观三个层面以新技术的专利制度保障、创新成果的产业化依托和竞争体系下的国际话语权提升为价值导向对《专利法》予以增补和完善,进而从专利法授权制度的完善、专利法利用机制的优化以及专利法救济规则的深化三个角度阐释和丰富了《专利法》的权利内核。《专利法》规范下专利权利义务的优化配置将成为我国构建知识产权新发展格局中重要的一笔。     

Injunctive relief in US patent practice

Legal context. Injunctive relief is available in civil actionsin the United States. Patent litigation is no exception andthe US patent statute explicitly permits it. Because it is aneffective remedy, injunctive relief is commonly sought togetherwith the monetary (legal) remedies which are available to patentowners when enforcing patent rights. Key points. On 15 May 2006 the US Supreme Court in eBay, Incet al v MercExchange, LLC altered the prevailing practice sayingthat ‘the decision whether to grant or deny injunctiverelief rests within the equitable discretion of the districtcourts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistentwith traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes noless than in other cases governed by such standards’. Practical significance. This article will focus on the availabilityof permanent injunctions in patent infringement actions in lightof the Supreme Court's recent ruling in eBay, Inc et al v MercExchange,LLC.     

新专利法对专利保护制度的完善

新专利法已于2001年7月1日起施行,此次专利法的修改是全面的,并有许多内容是实质性的改变,及时适应了中国加入 WTO 以后专利制度与 TRIPS 协议接轨的需要。本文仅就专利法第七章新增规定的七个方面,谈谈新专利法对专利保护制度的完善。     

质疑实用新型与发明专利的“衔接式”保护

现行的《专利审查指南》赋予同一申请人就相同的发明创造享有实用新型专利和发明专利的“衔接式”保护。这种“衔接式”保护不仅违反了禁止重复授权原则,而且造成了专利申请量的虚高和专利审查程序的复杂化,加重了专利局的审查工作负担,延长了同一发明创造的保护期。因此,必须废除《专利审查指南》所创设的“衔接式”保护机制。     

对假冒专利罪的澄清

《专利法》对假冒他人专利行为与侵犯专利实施权的行为作了严格区分 ,然而有关假冒专利罪的刑法学通说割裂了《刑法》与《专利法》之间的联系 ,混淆了假冒他人专利行为与侵犯专利实施权的行为的界线 ,从而得出了错误的结论。对假冒专利罪应当采用系统解释方法 ,根据假冒他人专利行为在《专利法》中的固有含义予以解释。     

Transferring Public Research: The Patent Licensing Mechanism in Agriculture

Technology transfer policies can bring public R&D to potential users, reduce burdens on public resources, and influence technology development. Patent licensing offers transparency, potentially higher research returns, and possible increased adoption of socially desirable technologies. However, it limits access to research results, and raises concerns that public institutions will alter their agendas. A review of the US Department of Agriculture's patent and licensing program addresses the types of technologies disseminated, social benefits associated with them, institutions licensing technologies, the importance of exclusivity, and whether research priorities have become oriented to private interests. Results suggest that USDA's patent licensing is not revenue driven, and its research agenda has not changed in response to the program. Licenses vary with respect to four important social benefits. Licensing program priorities are closer to those of the private sector than the USDA's research program. Partial or limited exclusivity may be sufficient to attract technology developers.     

Down to business

Legal context: A comparison of patent law relating to business method inventionsin the USA, before the European Patent Office, and in the UK. Key points: Broadly speaking, the interpretation of the US, UK, and Europeanpatent law concerning what can and cannot be patented appearsto have been largely finalized. However, as new cases are heardthe status quo is often disturbed, and this can make the applicationprocess difficult and expensive for applicants. The UK and Europeanpositions differ, despite guidelines indicating that as faras possible, the positions should be the same. In the USA also,although the approach is very different to Europe and the UK,a debate seems still to be raging as to the limits of the subjectmatter for which patents should be granted. Practical significance: The article will be helpful for anyone who wishes to quicklyunderstand the present approach to business method inventionsin these three jurisdictions.     

专利行政部门在开放许可制度中应有的职能

专利开放许可制度在国外已实施百年,专利行政部门的服务职能有逐步强化的趋势。借鉴国外经验并结合我国具体情况看,我国应坚持专利许可制度的自愿性,专利行政部门的职能宜以服务为主,并可在适当范围内就争议进行裁决。专利法修改方案中应规定开放许可合同必须备案,强化专利行政部门的登记职能;限定专利行政部门的裁决内容并明确其裁决程序;要求专利行政部门发布《专利开放许可指南》,丰富和细化其服务内容。     

我国专利行政保护制度的发展路径

1984年《专利法》确立了专利行政保护制度,之后,该制度成为专利法历次修改的争议焦点.比较研究这些修改内容,可以发现该制度的以下发展趋势:专利行政裁决职能呈现出弱化趋势,而行政查处职能和行政调解职能则呈现出强化趋势;以第二次修改为标志,专利行政保护制度的重心已发生转移;该制度可以遵循以下发展路径:由过去的以行政裁决为重心——到现在的以行政查处为重心——再到将来的以行政服务为基本理念和重心.     

Obviousness and IP: time to reconsider

On 6 February, the day this editorial was written, the UnitedKingdom Patent Office surprised members of the local intellectualproperty professions when it launched an unexpected discussionpaper, Consultation on the Inventive Step Requirement in UnitedKingdom Patent Law and Practice and sought informed responseby 31 May. On the assumption that the provisions of patent law are intendedto reflect a balance between the complementary