The Tale of Law and Law Enforcement Practice: Utility Models

The court, investigating and evaluating the formula of the utility model, agreed with the conclusion of Rospatent that there are no grounds for registering the said technical solution as a utility model due to the fact that the means used in the claimed technical solution are spaced apart and are not in a constructive unity, but their sharing does not lead to the creation of a new device with a new function. Dixi!

And why the fuss something? Yes, useful models in Rospatent stopped issuing without looking. Previously, they gave out, but now they have started to look at the application and everyone is trying to see the system in them more abruptly, but to deny the applicant the whole form, they say, it’s not a servile case to patent the system. But it all started so well ...

What was first? First there was the word. Model. Useful. And the idea, they say, let's make a patent for a not-quite-something-invention-but-very-very-useful and we will issue such a patent just like that. What a great idea! Let's! Here that the main thing - to start. So that you can cope, so that the process goes ... right? And in 1916 from the birth of Christ a useful model appeared in Russia as a tool for the legal protection of intellectual property. The boyars must have hoped that conscious citizens and representatives of nascent small businesses would patent as useful models what they were supposed to be - simple utensils for handicraft or small-scale production. So in the Patent Law (Art. 5) they stated: “The constructive implementation of the means of production and consumer goods, as well as their components, are useful models.” And in the " Rules for the preparation of applications " is approximately the same: "As a utility model, a technical solution relating to the device is protected. The devices include designs and products. " They wanted the best, but it turned out ...
')
In general, it turned out that citizens and theirs legal entities (not by the night, be remembered) began to patent and use as a utility model not flat dishes, but directly distributed systems and even (scary to say) complexes - well, all sorts of systems weapons, integrated systems of traffic control, and even - as they are there - yeah, remote space communications systems. And then it was ordered not to let the okhalnikov. I mean the system as a utility model to ban. And that everyone has his own concept of a system, so for that he is pluralism. And the doctrine you-know-who is omnipotent, because it is true. And vice versa. In short, for some time the word “system” in the utility model became valid for the examination of Rospatent, like a red rag for a bull and useful applications with a seditious word were wrapped in droves. And citizens and these legal entities did not surrender, they rushed to the Tent on patent disputes. Appeal. So that everything according to the law, in all fairness, you understand! And Rospatent began to persist. So stubborn citizens with these same people somehow did not appease. And it came right up to the Court of Intellectual Property Rights. And he decided to the Court that the modelki had become the right thing to wrap up, because it was said: not allowed! And why it is not allowed, know that is also not supposed! And why resent? There is nothing to be indignant! For law and law enforcement practice are not always the essence of consonant substances, and sometimes they are just opposites that are in a dialectical struggle. In the name of progress. So that!

And for true connoisseurs of poetry, we also have the original of the judicial decision in store: The decision of the Court of Intellectual Property Rights dated January 20, 2015 in case No. SIP-926/2014 . Enjoy!

Well, what do we need? Yes, in general, as if, and nothing. Is that in the preparation of applications for utility models need to be more careful. And then they recognize your nyashu system and then write disappeared ...