Intellectual Property Law © 2007 IBM Corporation EUPACO 2 – The European Patent Conference 16 May 2007 Patent Quality Roger Burt IBM Europe.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ethical aspects and Patents in Lifescience Peter R. Thomsen Manager Global IP Litigation, Corporate Intellectual Property, Novartis WIPO symposium on IP.
Advertisements

The John Marshall Law School 57th Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference Post-Grant Procedures Michael P. Tierney Lead Administrative Patent Judge.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION OFFICE OF PATENT COUNSEL March 16, 2001.
Patent System Reform(s) 2007 EDUCAUSE Policy Conference May 16, 2007 E.R. Kazenske Microsoft Corporation.
Industrial Property the Patent system
Examples of technology searches Jerusalem 21 July 2010 Alex Riechel Associate Officer, Innovation and Technology Support Section.
Invention Spotting – Identifying Patentable Inventions Martin Vinsome June 2012.
Intellectual Property March 4, 2015 Don Keach Director, Intellectual Property Development and Technology Transfer Office Copyright University of Kentucky.
Patentability of Software by Paul Van den Bulck Partner ULYS Law Firm
Patents Copyright © Jeffrey Pittman. Pittman - Cyberlaw & E- Commerce 2 Legal Framework of Patents The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 25, 2008 Patent - Utility.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School March 3, 2008 Patent - Nonobviousness.
Patent Overview by Jeff Woller. Why have Patents? Patents make some people rich – but, does that seem like something the government should protect? Do.
Patents 101 April 1, 2002 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
Intellectual Property (IP) GE 105 Introduction to Engineering Design.
Secondary Use Patents: An international and Canadian perspective E. Richard Gold James McGill Professor, McGill Faculty of Law Secondary Use Pharmaceutical.
Patents Southwest Quantum Technologies Group Richard Tatham 02/02/2015.
Rodolphe Bauer, Frédéric Dedek, Gareth Jenkins, Cristina Margarido
Intellectual Property – The Basics Christine Helliwell, PhD Scottish Health Innovations Ltd 25 th October 2012.
Utility Requirement in Japan Makoto Ono, Ph.D. Anderson, Mori & Tomotsune Website:
W HAT CAN BE PATENTED – AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ? András Jókúti Hungarian Intellectual Property Office Ankara, 25 January 2011.
Patent Protection in Europe
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND YOUR RIGHTS Helen Johnstone Seminar 12 July 2006 EAST MIDLANDS INTERNATIONAL TRADE ASSOCIATION.
Categories of Claims in the Field of CII Edoardo Pastore European Patent Office Torino, October 2011.
Judicially Created Diversity in Patent Law Norman Siebrasse Professor of Law University of New Brunswick, Canada.
Professor Peng  Patent Act (2008) ◦ Promulgated in 1984 ◦ Amended in 1992, 2000, and 2008.
Investing in research, making a difference. Patent Basics for UW Researchers Leah Haman Intellectual Property Associate WARF 1.
Caroline Coles Faculty of Business and Law De Montfort University © Creative Commons BY SA.
Knowledge Transfer | Accelerating Innovation KT Training – 9 September 2014 Introduction to Intellectual Property Rights D. Mazur – 9 September 2014.
Seminar Industrial Property Protection Prague, 4 June 2003 Patent Protection in Europe Heidrun Krestel Liaison Officer Member States Co-operation Programmes.
Heli PihlajamaaLondon, Director Patent Law (5.2.1) Clarity - Article 84 EPC.
Introduction to Patents Anatomy of a Patent & Procedures for Getting a Patent Margaret Hartnett Commercialisation & IP Manager University.
6.1 Chapter 6 Patents © 2003 by West Legal Studies in Business/A Division of Thomson Learning.
6.1 Chapter 6 Patents © 2003 by West Legal Studies in Business/A Division of Thomson Learning.
Patents IV Nonobviousness
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Patents Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Institute for Software Research School of Computer.
Patent Law Jody Blanke, Professor Computer Information Systems and Law Mercer University, Atlanta.
Patentable Subject Matter Donald M. Cameron. 2 Patents: The Bargain Public: gets use of invention after patent expires Inventor/Owner: gets limited monopoly.
Robert J. Hart CPA, EPA, FBCS Proposal for a Directive on the patentability of computer- implemented inventions  Commission proposal - 20 February 2002.
Espacenet and Patent Searching Dr Dolores Cassidy Patent Examiner 09 October 2015.
Overview of the FTC’s 2003 Proposed Reforms to U.S. Patent Law David W. Hill.
What is Patentable Subject Matter? Dan L. Burk Chancellor’s Professor of Law University of California, Irvine.
PATENTS, INTEGRATED CIRCUITS, AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS Presented By: Navdeep World Trade Organization.
1 Teaching Innovation - Entrepreneurial - Global The Centre for Technology enabled Teaching & Learning, N Y S S, India DTEL DTEL (Department for Technology.
15-16 May 2007Geertrui Van OverwalleEUPACO One size fits all? How unitary is the present European patent system? Geertrui Van Overwalle Centre for Intellectual.
Electronic Discovery Guidelines FRCP 26(f) mandates that parties “meaningfully meet and confer” to consider the nature of their respective claims and defenses.
International Intellectual Property Profs. Atik and Manheim Fall, 2006 Business Method Patents.
Intellectual Property. Business Law Companies spend significant resources on research and development. In today's globalized and liberalized world information.
Patent Review Overview Summary of different types of Intellectual Property What is a patent? Why would you want one? What are the requirements for patentability?
ip4inno Module 5B IP in the real world Practical exercise to help you decide ‘What Protection is Appropriate?’ Name of speakerVenue & date.
International Intellectual Property Prof. Manheim Spring, 2007 Business Method Patents Copyright © 2007.
Patents in Russia Vladimir Biriulin, Partner Gorodissky and Partners Law Firm, Moscow, Russia.
M a i w a l d P a t e n t a n w a l t s G m b H München Düsseldorf Hamburg New York Page 1 The patentability of business methods and software-related inventions.
Patent filing and tips on patent drafting Makerere University – July 7, 2016 Kagwa John Marius – Examiner Patents.
Patents 101 March 28, 2006 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
Jody Blanke, Professor Computer Information Systems and Law 1.
PCT-FILING SYSTEM.
The position in the UK Dr Ali Al-Alfatlawi.
Options to Protect an Invention: the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and Trade Secrets Hanoi October 24, 2017 Peter Willimott Senior Program Officer WIPO.
Of Counsel Polsinelli, LLP
Nuts and Bolts of Patent Law
Patentability of AI related inventions
Patents IV Nonobviousness
Global Innovation Management Workout on Writing a Patent
Comparing subject matter eligibility in us and eu
Patentable Subject Matter
GENERAL INTRODUCTION THE PATENT SYSTEM.
Claim drafting strategies when filing a European patent application or entering the European phase of a PCT-application Christof Keussen
Trilateral Seminar of the French, German and Polish Groups of AIPPI
Presentation transcript:

Intellectual Property Law © 2007 IBM Corporation EUPACO 2 – The European Patent Conference 16 May 2007 Patent Quality Roger Burt IBM Europe

Intellectual Property Law © 2007 IBM Corporation 2 Patentability Criteria  Novelty  Inventive Step  Industrial Application  Clear and concise claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought  Sufficiency of Disclosure –Sufficiently clear and complete to be carried out by the skilled man  Exceptions from Patentability –Discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods –Aesthetic creations –Schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers –Presentations of information

Intellectual Property Law © 2007 IBM Corporation 3 Inventive Step  An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step, –if having regard to the state of the art,  it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. (Art 56 EPC)  Predicated on high quality search for prior art  “Obvious” means? –That which does not go beyond the normal progress of technology but follows plainly or logically from the prior art –something which does not involve the exercise of any skill or ability beyond that to be expected of the person skilled in the art –More than merely novel?

Intellectual Property Law © 2007 IBM Corporation 4 The Skilled Man  Who is the skilled person?  An invention is obvious if it is something which does not involve the exercise of any skill or ability beyond that to be expected of the person skilled in the art  Is there a hint or pointer in the state of the art which would lead the skilled person to the claimed invention?  Would the skilled person, having regard to the choices available to him, address the particular problem under consideration and arrive at the claimed solution with a reasonable expectation of success?

Intellectual Property Law © 2007 IBM Corporation 5 Improving patent quality & reducing uncertainty  Patent Quality Initiatives happening globally –Peer to Patent community patent review –Open Source As Prior Art –Patent Quality Index  Amicus (friend of the court) Activity –Phillips – precision in claim interpretation –eBay – balance in awarding injunctions –Metabollite – technicity requirement for business methods –KSR – raising the bar on non-obviousness  Patent Holder’s Code of Conduct –Upholding the patentee’s side of the shared responsibility

Intellectual Property Law © 2007 IBM Corporation 6 Global Collaborative Examination  Multiple searches by different Patent Offices collated and used by all examiners to do substantive examination  Concept:  A secure workspace for examiners worldwide to share search results and analysis –Each examiner at least searches in own area of own expertise and language –Combined with third party submitted prior art  Accessible to patent offices worldwide –Secured  Search results shared to other examiners  Applicability of prior art discussed among examiners  Office actions written separately after discussion is closed