Showing papers on "Patent office published in 2015"

Open innovation of knowledge cities

Abstract: This research seeks to answer the basic question, “As a city evolves from an industrial city to a knowledge one, are its open innovation activities vitalized?” In this research, we compare the total number of patent applications, the number of joint applicants of each patent, and the ratio of patents jointly applied, in four Korean cities—Daegu, Kwangju, Cheonann total, top 10 % patent applicants group among total patent applicants, and the lower 70 % patent applicant group among total patent applicants. The research included 144,625 patents submitted to the Korea Patent Office from 1981 to 2010. As knowledge-based urbanization proceeds, the size of a knowledge city increases. The lowest 70 % of patent applicants (rather than the top 10 %) apply for more patents, and the breadth and depth of open innovation rises. This research is limited to mutual patent applications as a target of open innovation. In the future, additional research will need to be conducted on various open innovation channels such as patent citation, intellectual property right transfer, licensing, and M&A. To maximize the beneficial characteristics of a knowledge city in a large city, the improvement of open innovation across the city is essential. If strengthening open innovation by SMEs or start-ups is set as a corporate strategy or a government policy, it will be a source of development of knowledge-based urbanization and continued economic development of a knowledge city, as well as of the total knowledge assets.

What is the Probability of Receiving a U.S. Patent

Abstract: TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction I. Data and Methodology II. Patent Examination in the United States A. The Examination Process B. Continuation Procedures III. Allowance Rates Across Technology Fields IV. Allowance Rates Across Inventor Types V. Conclusion Appendix INTRODUCTION Inventors choose to protect their inventions with patents for a variety of reasons. (1) A key element of inventors' cost-benefit calculus regarding patents is the expectation that their applications will succeed. Unfortunately, there is little information about the historical rates at which the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) grants patents. This lack of information about the probability of obtaining a patent makes it difficult for inventors to determine the best way to protect their intellectual property. The absence of systematic evidence on patent allowance rates also skews policy discussions about the patent examination standards employed by the USPTO. Some scholars argue that the USPTO grants patents too easily, pointing to patents like the "Beerbrella" (U.S. Patent #6637447), swinging methods (U.S. Patent #6368227), and a user-operated amusement apparatus for kicking the user's buttocks (U.S. Patent #6293974). These scholars argue that a large number of such frivolous, "rubber-stamped" patents are hindering, rather than promoting, the U.S. innovation system. (2) For example, some entities, often referred to as "patent trolls," allegedly obtain patents with dubious claims solely to extract rents from genuine inventors who may appear to be infringing on the entities' patents. Judge Posner recently opined that "the problem of patent trolls is a function in part of the promiscuity with which the patent office has issued patents." (3) Despite numerous allegations of USPTO laxity and calls for reforms based on anecdotal observations of silly patents, few studies have attempted to calculate the actual percentage of U.S. patent applications that succeed. The calculation of patent allowance rates, while seemingly simple, is complicated by several aspects of the patent examination process. First, patent applications that are initially rejected after examination can produce "new," closely related applications called "continuations." Continuations are difficult to track, but may ultimately emerge as patents. Second, the USPTO publishes examination outcomes only for granted applications, if filed before November 29, 2000, or for applications pending eighteen months after application date if filed on or after November 29, 2000. (4) Third, applicants alter the claims in their applications during the examination process. The allowance of some patentable claims within an application is not the same as the allowance of an application as it was filed, and this distinction should be taken into account in any discussion of allowance rates, particularly as it pertains to the extent of scrutiny associated with the examination process. In this study, we address the above challenges by analyzing unique application-level data available internally at the USPTO. The data tracks 2.15 million utility patent applications filed from 1996 to 2005 and examined until June 30, 2013, by which time 99.8% of the progenitor applications had been granted or abandoned. (5) "Progenitor applications" are applications unrelated to any previously filed U.S. patent applications. This allows us to link each progenitor application to related subsequent applications produced by various continuation procedures. We can thereby accurately estimate the probability of allowance without the limitations of previous studies based on partial samples of published applications or exit cohorts. (6) In order to capture the complexity of the examination process, we calculate three measures of patent allowance rates: (i) first-action allowance rate, the proportion of progenitor applications allowed without further examination; (ii) progenitor allowance rate (or simply, allowance rate), the proportion of progenitor applications allowed without any continuation procedure, and (iii) family allowance rate, the proportion of progenitor applications that produce at least one patent, including the outcomes of continuation applications that emerge from progenitor applications. …

Identifying patterns in rare earth element patents based on text and data mining

Abstract: Rare earth elements (REE) are needed to produce many cutting-edge products, and their depletion is a major concern. In this paper, we identify unique characteristics of REE-related patents granted from 1975 to 2013 in five large patent offices around the world. Through topic detection and clustering of patent text, we found that purification processes related to oxides, nitrogen oxide, and exhaust gas were highlighted in the Korean Intellectual Property Office and Japan Patent Office (JPO). Molecular sieve, dispersion, and preparation methods involving yttrium, cerium, methane, zirconium, and ammonia were prominent in the China Patent and Trademark Office (CPTO) in the areas of performing operation and transporting. Quadratic assignment procedure correlation analysis was performed for IPC co-occurrence among REE patents in different offices, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office showed significantly different patterns than the CPTO and JPO. Furthermore, using betweenness centrality as an indicator of technology transition, the manufacture and treatment of nanostructures, nanotechnology for materials and surface science, and electrodes were identified as important REE technologies to be protected in Korea. In Japan, the technological areas identified as important for protection were the apparatuses and processes of manufacturing or assembling devices, compounds of iron, and materials. Our study results offer insights into national strategies for REE-related technologies in each country.

Patent Office Cohorts

Abstract: Concerns regarding low quality patents and inconsistent decisions prompted Congress to enact the first major patent reform act in over sixty years and likewise spurred the Supreme Court to take a renewed interest in substantive patent law. Since little compelling empirical evidence exists as to what features affect the Agency’s granting behavior, policymakers have been trying to fix the patent system without understanding the root causes of its dysfunction. This Article aims to fill at least part of this gap by examining one feature of patent examiners that may affect their grant rate throughout their tenure: the year in which they were hired by the Patent Office. An examiner may develop a general examination “style” in the critical early stages of her career that persists even in the face of changes in application quality or patent allowance culture at the agency. To the extent initial hiring environments influence a newly hired examiner’s practice style, variations in such initial conditions suggests examiners of different hiring cohorts may follow distinct, enduring pathways with their examination practices. Consistent with this prediction, we find strong evidence that the year an examiner was hired has a lasting effect on her granting patterns over the tenure of her career. Moreover, we find that the variation in the particular pathways adopted by different Patent Office cohorts aligns with observed fluctuations in the initial conditions faced by such cohorts. By documenting the existence of cohort effects and by demonstrating the importance of initial environments in explaining certain long-term outcomes, this analysis holds various implications for patent policy and the administrative state more generally.

Inter Partes Review and the Design of Post-Grant Patent Reviews

Abstract: Inter partes review (IPR) is one of a number of mechanisms for eliminating improper patents through “post-grant review.” Challenging an issued patent is expensive and paid for by the challenger, but all who practice the patent benefit from its invalidation, creating a free-rider problem. While post-grant review has widely been heralded as a cheaper, more expert alternative to litigation for screening out bad patents, little attention has been paid to the particular design of post-grant review systems. These design choices matter tremendously, as arguably small changes to the pre-existing inter partes reexam system, leading to the inter partes review system, have had a big impact, the expanded uptake of reviews. As the US weighs making additional changes to the IPR system created by the America Invents Act just a few years ago, it is worthwhile to consider the experiences of other countries whose systems are older. One particularly important feature of IPR relates to the interplay between invalidity and infringement. District courts more often than not stay their cases when parallel IPRs are filed, meaning that the USPTO decides novelty and obviousness based on a subset of prior art, leaving infringement and remaining invalidity issues to the district courts to decide. This creates a bifurcated system that resembles the system that Germany has had in place for decades, in which validity and infringement are decided by different venues. Much can be learned by considering the two countries’ systems, and the similarities and differences in their designs and their outcomes. In the first several years that IPRs have been available, an estimated 84 % of decided IPRs resulted in partial or total invalidation of the patent, raising great concern. But this number must be understood in context. The patents that get reviewed in IPR are those that are highly selected, both by the Patent Office as reasonably likely containing an invalid claim, and by the public as justifying the considerable expense of a challenge. Many claims drop out along the way, because they do not meet these thresholds. Thus, only about 25% of challenged claims (as opposed to reviewed) claims end up being canceled. Accordingly, IPR decisions are likely to be issued in that tiny fraction of issued patents where the case for invalidity is particularly strong. In most cases, the invalidated patents represent Patent Office mistakes; patents that should never have been issued in the first place, they also may be the product of a change in law. Post grant proceedings are a well-recognized way to correct Patent Office error – for example, in Europe, opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office (EPO), which are used to review 5-8 %% of issued patents, have resulted in the partial or total invalidation of patents close to 70 % of the time, and in German revocation proceedings, which in many ways resemble IPRs, 73 % of patents are partially or fully revoked. Within EPO opposition and German revocation proceedings, chemistry patents have been the most likely to have been revoked or amended (71 % in EPO, and 84 % in German revocation); in US IPRs, medical device (93 %, N=29) and biopharma and chemistry patents (87 %, N=23) have fared the worst, but based on relatively small sample sizes.Another key metric is the share of instituted reviews that are actually decided, rather than settled. In the US, a high stay rate of parallel litigation, as facilitated by clear and predictable timeframes and outcomes, contribute to a high decision rate on validity and the efficient staging of disputes. This provides a benefit to the public, the clarified status of the claims. In Germany, in contrast, infringement proceedings do not wait for the validity decision. This leads to validity challenges often settling, for example when the infringement decision is handed down. As a consequence, the status of the patent claim is left unclarified. We examine these and other key aspects of post-grant review as well as various factors, including claim construction standards, litigation stays, and the timing of reviews, to consider some general lessons for the design of post-grant inter partes patent reviews.

Non-embryo-destructive Extraction of Pluripotent Embryonic Stem Cells: Implications for Regenerative Medicine and Reproductive Medicine.

Abstract: On August 1, 2013, the German Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent for the “Non-embryo-destructive extraction of pluripotent embryonic stem cells, stem cells obtained by this process and their uses” (DE 10 2004 062 184 B4). The patent document describes a non-embryo-destructive process to harvest embryonic stem cells from the inner cell mass (ICM) during the blastocyst development stage. The patent application was filed with the German Patent Office in Munich on December 23, 2004 and the patent claim was published in 2006. The patent was granted on August 1, 2013. Processing the patent application was a lengthy affair due to the fact that, for a long time, the prevailing opinion in Germany was that genetic screening of embryos (preimplantation genetic diagnosis) was prohibited under the German Embryo Protection Act (ESchG). A ruling by the German Federal Court in 2010 proved this opinion to be false. Animal studies have provided the evidence that the described procedure is technically feasible; healthy offspring were born after stem cells were harvested from the blastocyst and stored. We report here on a technique for the non-embryo-destructive extraction of pluripotent embryonic stem cells together with potential future applications for stem cells harvested in this manner.

Campaigners challenge patent applications for hepatitis C drug in five countries.

Abstract: Campaigning groups are challenging patent applications for the blockbuster hepatitis C drug sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) in Argentina, Brazil, China, Russia, and Ukraine to improve access to the drug. I-MAK, a US based group that campaigns for increased access to affordable medicines, has claimed that Gilead Sciences, the US biotechnology company that makes Sovaldi, is seeking “illegitimate patents” for sofosbuvir and “blocking millions of people around the world from getting the treatment” for hepatitis C.1 The group alleged that the base compound in sofosbuvir is not new and is already covered by earlier patents. I-MAK, together with an Indian organisation, Delhi Network of Positive People, opposed the patent application for sofosbuvir in India on the grounds that no new evidence showed it to have enhanced efficacy over known forms of the compound. India’s patent office rejected the application for sofosbuvir in January on the grounds that sofosbuvir …

Patenting and Innovation in China: Incentives, Policy, and Outcomes

Abstract: : China has undergone a patenting boom, with yearly increases in patent applications averaging 34 percent. Since 2000 this has resulted in a 16 fold increase in the annual number of patents and according to the United Nations, China s patent office has received more patent filings than any other country (UN December 11, 2012). Previous literature indicates that this trend is driven by large volumes of low quality patents. Given this, I was motivated to understand the drivers of this trend, the impact of patenting promoting policies, and the innovative outcomes of Chinese firms. This dissertation examines these three questions in three separate essays: What are the drivers of this patenting boom, and what implications exist for Chinese technical innovation? What are the innovative impacts of the Indigenous Innovation Policy, which is designed to promote patenting? How innovative are leading Chinese firms? The first essay describes the drivers of the Chinese patent boom and their implications. Examining existing literature, I find that two key patenting drivers are the role of patent promoting policies (including patent quotas and subsidies), and increasing competition among firms. These drivers produce low quality and high quality patents, respectively. I also find that the effects of another patentpromoting policy, the Chinese Indigenous Innovation Policy, are not fully understood. Finally, I provide policy prescriptions for increasing the quality of patenting. The second essay investigates the technology outcomes of the Chinese Indigenous Innovation Policy, which is a public procurement for innovation policy. Using a difference in difference strategy with count models and a simple pre/post test I find that there are no economically significant effects from this policy at either the national or firm level.

Overuse of Exclusivity in Patent Law

Abstract: Nowadays, the main purpose of a patent law system is predominantly, while balancing private and public interests, to govern economic decisions, to encourage innovation and, in general, to reach economic efficiency. On the one hand, the question is, therefore, whether the current German patent law system (including German and European antitrust laws), as it is currently applied, and the future system under the regulation on the European Patent with Unitary Effect, as it is designed, contain too many exclusive elements to be efficient. On the other hand, because the choice between the two options may not be purely economic, it must also be investigated whether other factors could be taken into account or—more importantly for an analysis that focuses on the economic effects of the patent system—make it necessary to use either exclusive or non-exclusive elements. Two additional perspectives may be relevant: distributional preferences and other justice considerations. Although these two categories and economic efficiency may not be strictly distinguished from each other, the additional perspectives should be understood here as limitations on economic efficiency. Also, due to the present focus on a concrete legal system, at least shortsighted legal reasons (i.e., higher-ranking law and multilateral contracts) may play a role.

When Biopharma Meets Software: Bioinformatics at the Patent Office

Abstract: Scholars have spilled much ink questioning patent quality. Complaints encompass concern about incoming applications, examination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and the USPTO’s ultimate output. The literature and some empirical data also suggest, however, that applications, examination, and output may differ considerably based on technology. Most notably, although definitions of patent quality are contested, quality in the biopharmaceutical industry is often considered substantially higher than that in information and communications technology (ICT) industries.This Article presents the first empirical examination of what happens when the two fields are combined. Specifically, it analyzes the creation and early history of a USPTO examination art unit (AU 1631) that reviews interdisciplinary inventions at the intersection of the biological and information sciences. We explore private value and quality metrics in an early cohort of incoming applications assigned to AU 1631, comparing the applications’ performance on these metrics to a group of applications assigned to a related art unit for more traditional software. We then explore the marginal value of the examination process by comparing examination in AU 1631 with that of a matched set of applications assigned to the traditional software art unit.Our results show that, on almost all conventional measures of patent value and quality, incoming bioinformatics applications were substantially different from, and “better” than, traditional software applications. Moreover, when we compared examination of applications in the two art units that had been matched on these dimensions of private value and quality, applications in AU 1631 experienced significantly more rejections, particularly notice-related rejections, than the conventional software applications. The notable exception was in the area of nonobviousness, where the prevailing law at the time made interdisciplinary, or “recombinant,” inventions presumptively nonobvious. Potential causal explanations for the higher rejection rates in areas other than nonobviousness include “biotechnology-specific” guidelines then in place at the USPTO as well as the higher educational attainment of examiners in AU 1631.Our results contribute to the empirical literature on factors that affect patent examination quality, particularly with respect to notice. They suggest that technology-specific examination guidelines and educational level not only have an impact, but that this impact can “spill over” into other technologies. The results also demonstrate, at the level of the art unit (an important but relatively understudied unit of analysis), the empirical theme of substantial variation in what the USPTO receives and how it processes what it receives. We conclude by discussing potential policy implications, including a link to the literature on how examination should be conducted when (as is increasingly the case) the art in question is an interdisciplinary, team-based field.

The First Patent Litigation Explosion

Abstract: The twenty-first century “patent litigation explosion” is not unprecedented. In fact, the nineteenth century saw an even bigger surge of patent cases. During that era, the most prolific patent enforcers brought hundreds or even thousands of suits, dwarfing the efforts of today’s leading “trolls.” In 1850, New York City and Philadelphia alone had ten times more patent litigation, per U.S. patent in force, than the entire United States in 2013. Even the absolute quantity of late-nineteenth-century patent cases bears comparison to the numbers filed in recent years: the Southern District of New York in 1880 would have ranked third on the list of districts with the most patent infringement suits filed in 2014 and would have headed the list as recently as 2010.This Article reveals the forgotten history of the first patent litigation explosion. It first describes the rise of large-scale patent enforcement in the middle of the nineteenth century. It then draws on new data from the archives of two leading federal courts to trace the development of patent litigation from 1840 to 1910 and to outline the scale, composition, and leading causes of the litigation boom. Finally, the Article explores the consequences of this phenomenon for the law and politics of the patent system. The effects of the litigation explosion were profound. The rise of large-scale patent assertion provides a new explanation for patent law’s crucial shift from common law to equity decision making in the middle of the nineteenth century. And at its height, the litigation explosion produced a political backlash that threatened to sweep away the patent system as we know it. Recovering the history of patent law during this formative and turbulent era offers fresh perspectives on the patent reform debates of today.

Comparative Patent Quality

Abstract: One of the most urgent problems with the US patent system is that there are too many patents of poor quality. Most blame the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) – its mistakes, overly generous grant rate, and lack of consistency. But, the quality and quantity of patents in force is the product of three sets of decisions: to submit an application of certain quality (by the applicant), to grant the patent (by the patent office), and to renew a patent and keep it in force (by the applicant/patentee). Startling, there is no consensus way to measure patent quality. This article addresses these shortcomings by developing new, comparative ways to measure patent quality, using the benchmark of the European Patent Office (EPO), viewed as the “gold standard” for patent quality. Tracking the progress of patent submissions, grants, and renewals, including of close to 100,000 applications filed at both the EPO and USPTO, it reveals subtle and thus far overlooked differences with implications for how the US should implement and prioritize improvements to patent quality.

Industrial property right utilization system

Abstract: PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To accurately convey a shape of a product and a stereo trademark related to application of a patent, utility model, and design.SOLUTION: An industrial property right utilization system 1 includes: an intellectual property registration server 2 owned by a person other than Patent Office; and a right holder terminal 3 and a use applicant terminal 4 each connected with the intellectual property registration server 2 through a public communication line. The intellectual property registration server 2 manages intellectual property information on an industrial property right already filed to Patent Office. The right holder terminal 3 is used by an applicant, and recruits a person interested in transfer or license permission of an industrial property right already filed. The use applicant terminal 4 is a terminal used by a use wisher of an industrial property right already filed and submits transfer or license permission of the industrial property right. An evaluator terminal 5 gives valuation to the industrial property right already filed. Furthermore, the right holder terminal 3 provides the use applicant terminal 4 with stereo shape information for giving an instruction to molding means 6.

Cognitive Distances in Prior Art Search by the Triadic Patent Offices: Empirical evidence from international search reports

Abstract: Despite large numbers of empirical studies being conducted on examiner patent citations, few have scrutinized the cognitive limitations of officials at patent offices in searching for prior art to add patent citations during patent prosecution. This research takes advantage of the longitudinal gap between international search reports (ISRs) required by the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and subsequent examination procedures in national phases. It inspects whether several kinds of distances actually affect the probability that a piece of prior art is caught at the time of ISRs, which is much earlier than national phase examinations. Based on triadic PCT applications for all of the triadic patent offices (European Patent Office (EPO), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and Japan Patent Office (JPO)) between 2002 and 2005 and their citations made by the triadic offices, evidence shows that geographical distances negatively affect the probability of prior patents being caught in ISRs, while a lag of prior art positively affects the probability. Also, the technological complexity of an application negatively affects the probability, whereas the size of forward citations of prior art affects it positively. These results show the existence of cognitive restrictions borne by officials at the patent offices, and suggest issues for designing work sharing by patent offices, in that the duplication of search costs exists only where search horizons of patent offices overlap each other.

The Innovator's Dilemma

Abstract: INTRODUCTIONThe United States patent system is designed to force innovators to make a choice: maintain their innovations as trade secrets or disclose them in exchange for patent protection.Trade secret protection offers the prospect of perpetual protection, but it may be defeated by independent discovery of the secret.1 Conversely, patent protection offers protection against independent discovery, but it limits the term of protection.2The patent system is often referred to in contract terms: the public obtains information which the innovator had the right to keep secret plus the right to use the innovation once the patent expires, while the innovator obtains enhanced protection for the innovation during the term of the patent. It is elementary contract law that there must be a "meeting of the minds";3 each party must know what they are giving up and what they are receiving.Through the mid-twentieth century, innovators were able to make rational decisions between the two forms of protection; the decision did not need to be made until the terms of the patent on offer were finalized. Therefore, the innovator could compare known patent protection against known trade secret protection, fully understanding the bargain.Four developments have made innovators' decisions more of a gamble and less of a contract: (1) patent office disclosure of innovations before reaching a decision on patentability, resulting from the introduction of pregrant publication;4 (2) delay in processing patent applications resulting from increased volume of applications;5 (3) restrictions and uncertainty as to what is patentable, resulting from Supreme Court decisions regarding statutory subject matter;6 and (4) incentives to file patent applications early (and possibly prematurely), resulting from the change from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-file system.7Combined, these developments force innovators to guess what might be on the other side of the bargain. They know that they must give up trade secret protection but they no longer know what, if any, patent protection they will get in exchange.This Article begins by describing the fundamental patent bargain: the federal government's offer of patent rights to an innovator in exchange for the innovator's trade secret rights. It then describes how the bargain was reached in "the good old days"-prior to the recent wave of patent reform. It then describes that wave of patent reform and how the modernization movement changed the nature of the bargain, with an emphasis on four changes: (1) the statutory revision that mandated publication of patent applications while they were still pending; (2) the administrative delays in deciding whether an innovation was patentable or not; (3) the statutory change to a first-to-file system and the resultant pressures on the patent office; and (4) Supreme Court decisions casting uncertainty on the likelihood of patentability of certain categories of innovation. It then catalogs and evaluates options for improving innovators' options.I.THE FUNDAMENTAL PATENT BARGAINAll inventions start as trade secrets. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act defines a trade secret as information that-(i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.8Thus, until the inventor discloses the invention to someone else, it meets the definition of a trade secret because, prior to disclosure, there is no way other persons can learn it by proper means and the inventor is, by definition, taking reasonable steps to maintain its secrecy. A trade secret lasts as long as the definitional requirements are met; it has the theoretical potential to be a perpetual right. …

Ready for Patenting

Abstract: Patent law has tried to find a middle ground between a vision of invention as a mental act and a competing vision that focuses on the actual building of a working product. The definition of invention in the 1952 Patent Act incorporates both conception and reduction to practice, sometimes choosing the first to conceive as the inventor and at other times choosing the first to reduce an invention to practice. But in trying to walk that middle ground, patent law has actually discouraged inventors from getting their inventions to work in practice, rewarding those who run to the patent office before they are fully done with the invention and giving them precedence over those who take the time to make sure their invention works by building and testing it. The problem is even worse under the new America Invents Act passed in 2011, which encourages patentees to file their applications as soon as possible. The fact that the law encourages inventors to file first and figure out later how (or even if) the invention works for its intended purpose is unfortunate. It produces underdeveloped patent applications that do not communicate useful information to the world. It facilitates the rise of patent trolls who obtain patents but never bother to produce a product, instead making a business of suing those who do. And it pushes people to patent things just in case, adding more patents into a system already overburdened with them.I reject proposals to go to the opposite extreme, requiring patentees to make products. But we should not be in the position in which we currently find ourselves: treating inventors less favorably if they try to build and test their inventions In this paper, I offer some thoughts on ways we might seek to protect inventors who actually decide to build and test their products.

International Knowledge Flows and Productivity: Intra- vs. Inter-Industry Spillovers

Abstract: The effects of international knowledge spillovers on total factor productivity (TFP) at the industry level are examined by using a panel of 13 manufacturing industries across 15 OECD countries over 23 years. We distinguish between intra- and inter-industry spillovers from the information on patent applications and citations. Patent data are taken from the Japan Patent Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Using four alternative spatial panel estimation techniques, we find that international knowledge spillovers within the same industry significantly contribute to sectoral TFP. In contrast, there is little evidence of a positive effect of international knowledge spillovers on TFP across industries.

Reforming the Patent System for the Post-Industrial Economy

Abstract: The grant of a patent depends on the technical merit and social worth of an invention under a quid pro quo arrangement where the patentee compensates society by publicly disclosing a clear description of the invention in a written document and explicitly claims those intellectual property aspects of the invention he believes are his under the patent act. By law, this description should be such that those skilled in the relevant arts can replicate the invention without undue experimentation or intellectual exertion either after acquiring a license from the patentee to do so during the life of the patent or without any license thereafter. In practice, the document is seldom written for full comprehension by relevant technical experts (a judicially ignored violation of the patent act) but for lawyers who, in patent litigation, must present their client’s case to generalist judges ignorant of the technical arts that support the patent. The arguments thus deviate from the “substance of what the patentee invented and how significant that invention really is” to “the scope of legal rights not by reference to the invention but by reference to semantic debates over the meaning of words chosen by lawyers”. To obviate these anomalies we suggest certain remedies that would enable the workload related to patent drafting, grant, validation, and infringement to be equitably shared among the patentee, the patent office, the judiciary, and the proposed Patent Validation Board.

Patent co-ownership as an example of network analysis of inter- organizational relationships from territorial perspective (Wspolwlasnosc patentowa jako przyklad analizy sieci relacji miedzyorganizacyjnych w ujeciu terytorialnym)

Abstract: The paper presents the structural characteristics of the patent co-ownership network in Poland for the year 2011, which was identified with the use of database administered by the Polish Patent Office. The social network analysis (SNA) was applied for graphics and calculation. The analysis was focused on inter-organizational and interregional level. The research procedure was also discussed.

Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceutical Patents in India: Whether the Natco Decision Will Meet the Global Benchmarks?

Abstract: The need to find a balance between the rights of pharma patent holders and public health has triggered some highly passionate debates in the last three decades. India provides a good case study which shows that the flexibilities under TRIPS Agreement can be efficiently utilised by developing countries without compromising their interests. The decision by the India Patent Office to grant a compulsory licence in favour of an Indian pharmaceutical company, Natco, has triggered lot of criticism and concerns. This article analyses the soundness of the decision in the light of global practices dealing with compulsory licensing which is reflected in international agreements, the Indian Patent Law provisions and the conduct of the Indian Patent Office in subsequent applications for such licences. It highlights some important factors which justify the grant of a compulsory licence in order to prove that the compulsory licence so granted is not anti-TRIPS and meets all the global benchmarks.

Method for preventing adhesion of sulphur or the like

Abstract: PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To resolve some defects found in the present situation by submitting a patent application with the Patent Office under a concept of thinking a great deal of people occupying 70% of population that geothermal generation has not been promoted due to adhesion of sulphur; the applicant has been submitting a proposal about geothermal generation with the government since accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant; the applicant has got an idea for filing a patent application with the Patent Office since sending mail to the government and the Third Sector has shown slow pace due to no action of the government; the government has only an idea on developing nuclear power plants and solar power generation of spending much money, has no concept based on low-income peopleSOLUTION: Adhesion of sulphur is eliminated with heat-proof silicone rubber Silicone rubber is adhered to an outside part of a washing tank The silicone rubber is adhered to the upper surface of a gas table The silicone rubber prevents stain, oxidization and corrosion of a muffler, printer, personal computer, water service pipe, gas pipe and the like

Fuzzy markup language with genetic learning mechanism for invention patent quality evaluation

Abstract: Patent quality evaluation and applications are important issues for new products generation. In recent years, Taiwan government also actively pushes the patent-related laws and rules to strengthen the development of national patent technologies and their protection utility. In order to deal with large amounts of patent information to enhance the patent expansibility and technology transfer possibility, this study proposes genetic fuzzy markup language (GFML) for patent quality evaluation. First, some patent gazettes are downloaded from Taiwan intellectual property office (TIPO) website. The GFML is used to describe the knowledge base and rule base of the patent's quality evaluation based on the evaluation index of Japan patent office (JPO) and intellectual property quotient (IPQ). Additionally, the patent quality evaluation ontology is also constructed. Then, we infer each patent's quality comprehensive evaluation based on the constructed ontology. We also adopt the genetic algorithm (GA) to improve the performance of the proposed method. Experimental results show that the proposed mechanism is feasible for the patent quality evaluation.

Patent Eligibility Post-Myriad: A Reinvigorated Judicial Wildcard of Uncertain Effect

Abstract: In the 1970s and early 1980s the US Supreme Court issued several landmark decisions establishing the contours of patent eligibility, a judicially created doctrine that serves as a gatekeeper to prevent the patenting of subject matter deemed so fundamental as to be better left unpatented. Over the course of the next 25 years the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit oversaw a progressive expansion in the scope subject matter deemed patent eligible, highlighted by the adoption in the 1990’s of a “useful, concrete and tangible” test for patent eligibility that for all practical purposes seemed to subsume the patent eligibility inquiry with the requirement of utility. However, in 2006 the Supreme Court actively reengaged the doctrine, and since that time the Court has granted certiorari in five patent eligibility cases, resulting in four decisions (the first case was dismissed after oral argument). In every case in which the Court reached a decision, all of the patent claims at issue were ruled invalid for covering patent ineligible subject matter. Unfortunately, these decisions provide little guidance for the lower courts and the Patent Office with respect to the criteria to be applied in assessing patent eligibility, and little coherent insight into exactly what the Court is trying to accomplish. This Article identifies some of the critical open questions that have been raised by the Supreme Court’s reinvigoration of patent eligibility, and reviews some of the early efforts by the lower courts to apply the heightened standard in a manner that maintains adequate incentives for innovation while addressing the legitimate policy concerns underlying the Supreme Court’s current obsession with the doctrine.

International market competitiveness of Japanese green innovation technologies: an analysis using patent data

Abstract: International market competitiveness of Japanese environmental technologies does not seem to reflect the level of technological innovation. This study investigates whether there actually is a gap between the international market competitiveness and the strength of green technological innovation in Japan. An analysis of patent data of 2006 and 2012 from the Japan Patent Office on green technologies of Japan, Europe, the USA, Korea, and China shows that both in 2006 and 2012, the overall international market competitiveness of Japanese green technologies was low in relation to the pace of technological innovation in Japan. In contrast, the international market competitiveness of European and US green technologies was higher overall in relation to the pace of innovation in these countries. This study also found that the gap between international market competitiveness and technological innovation in Japanese green technologies narrowed between 2006 and 2012, due to a significant decline in Japanese technological innovation.

Strategies for stem cell patent applications in the light of recent court cases

Abstract: Stem cells offer the prospect of treatments for diseases and injuries that are currently beyond medical science. Although development of these potential medical marvels has been dogged by their controversial origin, technological developments and guidance from recent judicial decisions have answered and overcome many of these difficulties. In particular, the European Patent Office, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Japan Patent Office and State Intellectual Property Office of China have published guidelines covering patenting of stem cell technologies in the light of recent decisions. We now see a patent landscape where stem cell technologies and related therapies can, with very few exceptions, be protected via patents, provided the appropriate form of claim wording is used.

Stratified Medicines: Prosecuting and Enforcing Claims Related to the Use of Known Drugs in New Patient Groups in Europe, Germany and Canada

Abstract: In the last two decades, molecular and diagnostic tools have progressively made their way at the center of a new pharmaceutical industry, which increasingly seeks to bring personalized treatments to patients. In Stratified Medicine, patients are split in different groups according to specific physiological or pathological characteristics, known as clinical biomarkers, which can predict their response to a particular drug treatment. As many successful compounds are reaching the end of their patent term or already have, innovators increasingly file patents for their use in newly identified groups of patients, typically high responders. As this field grows and is being increasingly incorporated in the practice of modern medicine, second medical use claims related to Stratified Medicines have gained high economical importance. This raises legitimate concerns as to how jurisdictions treat such innovations at the prosecution and enforcement stages in Europe, Germany and Canada. As the availability and the quality of the protection conferred by such patents is central to the level of R&D investments in the biopharmaceutical industry, a review of the relevant patent office practices and court precedents will highlight the common and unique challenges lying in those jurisdictions which still compromise the incentives of this sector. While the EPC Contracting States have adopted a more liberal stance when prosecuting such innovations, Canada still lags behind at this level, essentially because of their strict approach to novelty. On the other hand, the jurisdictions of Canada and Germany both share somewhat similar problems with regards to the enforcement of such second medical use claims which can leave innovators with few or no legal remedies in cases of so-called "off-label" and "cross-label" uses by physicians. In addition to amending the relevant sections of their patent laws, governments should strive to establish a more transparent system of reportability for prescribing physicians as well as strict drug reimbursement policies to face this problem and restore a balanced level of incentives in the promising and innovative field of Stratified Medicine.

U.S. patent office reworks unpopular policy

Abstract: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is again changing how it evaluates inventions derived from nature. Recent Supreme Court decisions, including a 2013 ruling that struck down patents on human genes, forced USPTO to tighten its rules about what is eligible for patent protection. But the agency drew fire with its first attempt to set a new standard this past March, which raised the eligibility bar for many biotech products. Critics warned that they would chill investment and render new therapies and diagnostics unpatentable. USPTO is now seeking feedback on a revised set of guidelines, which many of those critics see as an improvement, though it9s not yet clear how they will be implemented.