In the United States are planning a reform of the patent system
At the lower house of the American Parliament, hearings on patent reform began . This procedure was initiated by two deputies: Howard Berman, the new chairman of the parliamentary subcommittee on the Internet and intellectual property, and Rick Boucher. They are convinced that the current US patent system contributes to the registration of low quality patents, and also encourages numerous patent infringement proceedings. The reform should eliminate these shortcomings. Moreover, these shortcomings have arisen as a result of past reform.
In the early 1980s, the process of legal registration of patents and the consideration of complaints about their violation was changed so that all appeals began to be heard in the Court of Appeals (CAFC). In addition, ten years later, Congress changed the structure of fees at the US Patent Office and all procedural costs were paid by patent applicants. “It’s now clear that these seemingly routine procedural changes resulted in the strongest changes in patent rules and practice since 1836,” said Adam Jaffe, a professor of economics at Brendace University, during a speech at the hearing. at the parliament.
The fact is that CAFC interpreted the patent law in such a way as to facilitate the receipt of patents and their further protection. At the same time, the possibility of challenging the validity of patents became much more complicated. The new fee system has led to the fact that the patent office has become profitable to issue as many patents as possible, so that the proportion of approved applications has increased to 85%. For comparison, in the European Patent Office, this share is 72.5%, and in Japan - only 44.5%.
As a result, as Jaffe says, the patent system has evolved from a shield, which is supposed to protect inventors, into a grenade that companies throw into their competitors.
')
The patent reform proposed by Berman and Bushehr provides for administrative changes in the patent office and the CAFC. The main thing is that for these structures the financial interest in the approval of patent applications should disappear. Decisions must be made without financial pressure, but on the basis of purely scientific knowledge.
In addition, as part of the reform, it is proposed to introduce a procedure for public consideration and commenting on all patent applications, and applications must be published on the Internet 18 months after their filing. Anyone can post a comment directly on the website of the patent office.
And the most important point of patent reform is the proposal to explicitly ban the patenting of software and business methods. As you know, in the US, software has been patented since the late 80s. In general, the Berman-Bushehr initiative is actively supported by technology companies (almost all suffer from patent lawsuits from unknown “inventors” and small firms), but this last point may cause dissatisfaction.
Over the coming weeks, Berman and Bushehr will present the Patents Depend on Quality Act of 2006 (PDQ Act), followed by additional hearings on this issue.
In the early 1980s, the process of legal registration of patents and the consideration of complaints about their violation was changed so that all appeals began to be heard in the Court of Appeals (CAFC). In addition, ten years later, Congress changed the structure of fees at the US Patent Office and all procedural costs were paid by patent applicants. “It’s now clear that these seemingly routine procedural changes resulted in the strongest changes in patent rules and practice since 1836,” said Adam Jaffe, a professor of economics at Brendace University, during a speech at the hearing. at the parliament.
The fact is that CAFC interpreted the patent law in such a way as to facilitate the receipt of patents and their further protection. At the same time, the possibility of challenging the validity of patents became much more complicated. The new fee system has led to the fact that the patent office has become profitable to issue as many patents as possible, so that the proportion of approved applications has increased to 85%. For comparison, in the European Patent Office, this share is 72.5%, and in Japan - only 44.5%.
As a result, as Jaffe says, the patent system has evolved from a shield, which is supposed to protect inventors, into a grenade that companies throw into their competitors.
')
The patent reform proposed by Berman and Bushehr provides for administrative changes in the patent office and the CAFC. The main thing is that for these structures the financial interest in the approval of patent applications should disappear. Decisions must be made without financial pressure, but on the basis of purely scientific knowledge.
In addition, as part of the reform, it is proposed to introduce a procedure for public consideration and commenting on all patent applications, and applications must be published on the Internet 18 months after their filing. Anyone can post a comment directly on the website of the patent office.
And the most important point of patent reform is the proposal to explicitly ban the patenting of software and business methods. As you know, in the US, software has been patented since the late 80s. In general, the Berman-Bushehr initiative is actively supported by technology companies (almost all suffer from patent lawsuits from unknown “inventors” and small firms), but this last point may cause dissatisfaction.
Over the coming weeks, Berman and Bushehr will present the Patents Depend on Quality Act of 2006 (PDQ Act), followed by additional hearings on this issue.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/5055/
All Articles