Paper on Patents

A patent is given to an individual who has detailed for a public disclosure or has created some sort of invention. The patent is granted by the government for a limited period of time. An invention is a product or a process that provides a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem.

Proponents of patent reform largely focus on the cost of patent infringement litigation to the U.S. economy and companies. While some argue that the type of patents issued should be limited in order to uphold the intent of Article I, Section 8, others claim that standards for issuing patents should be strengthened in order to reduce the number of costly patent infringement lawsuits. The cost of litigation and standards for issuing a patent is the focus of the proceeding text and justification for patent reform in the United States.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, passed on September 16, 2011, was the most significant reform to the patent system in the United States since the Patent Act of 1952, which redefined the patentability of patent to include being nonobvious in addition to new and useful (1). The demanding need for patent reform had been discussed and debated frequently both within the literature focusing on patent trolls and consistently in Congress with the introduction of many patent reform acts that were never enacted: the Patent Reform Act of 2006 at the 109th Congress, the Patent Reform Act of 2007 at the 110th Congress, and the Patent Reform Act of 2009 at the 111th Congress (2-5). The enactment of the America Invents Act in 2011 after the failure of previous reform attempts signifies its importance in addressing the pressing issues of the United States patent system. The America Invents Acts specifically aimed to confront problems that were impeding innovation: the ever-increasing expense of the patent process, the exploitation of the patent system by patent trolls, and the unnecessary complexity and inefficiency of the patent process as a whole.

Acquiring patents for inventions in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry is a major part of my work here at Technology Law, PLLC. Chemical patents differ from other types of patent because of the high research costs involved and the risk in bringing new drugs on to the market. It is specialized work and I have years of experience in doing it. Patent protection lasts for 20 years from the date of its first filing, and in the US patent rights are enforced by litigation in federal district courts.

For example these patents may make it difficult for other scientists or organizations to come up with new innovations that can help crops become more nutritional green etc.

Patent trolls, often referred to as Patent Holding Companies (PHC) in the media, are a defamation to the ideals that the United States patent office were meant to promote, that is protection for the innovators and inventors of America. Wikipedia defines patent trolls as “a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question…”.1 ("Patent troll.") Not only do they undermine the ability of small companies or individuals to experience success and profitability through invention, they also hamper the progress of society, especially in fields of technology. PHCs are a devastating problem in the United States, not only in terms of their impact on global markets and progression, but also in terms of how many PHCs there are and how big they can become.

Lawson for their patent infringement case against Howell Jewelry. Howell Jewelry will lose the patent case because the memo will surface as an incriminating document in discovery of the lawsuit. Howell will have to abandon their new process and make arrangements for repayment of loss revenue to Greene. The public opinion in this case will side with Greene damaging the reputation of Howell’s business. Howell should resolve the patent infringement before going to court. The number of patent application is growing steadily,1 and we can easily hear the news of patent wars in global business, such as “Apple vs. Samsung” and “Microsoft vs. Motorola.” Even a firm called a “patent troll” which collects patents and makes profits from the litigation against the infringement has appeared in the market. The patent holders, however, do not always win the trial; roughly a half of all litigated patents are found to be invalid.2 Furthermore, not every conflict over patent rights involves a lawsuit. In fact, a majority of the disputes are settled; some of them are resolved peacefully before they go to court, and others are settled in the middle of the trial. Given these various scenarios, it is natural to attempt to integrate a series of events regarding patent rights and to clarify the mechanism behind them.

When Tim Berners-Lee created the Internet as a non-proprietor, not-for-profit information conduit, he could not have predicted how controversial digitized intellectual property would become. Prior to the Internet, intellectual property was a fairly straightforward issue. It was protected with copyright, trademark, and patent legislations, which granted exclusive rights to owners. Violations were not as abundant because distribution was constrained by time and space. Moreover, violators were identifiable because anonymity was difficult to achieve. In today's "global village" however, digital information such as books, music, software and art can be instantly shared between two

A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem. An invention in general must fulfill certain criteria in order to be protected by a patent. For example, the Patents Act, 1970 in S. 2(1) (j) defines invention as a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application. In other words, an invention in order to be patentable must show an element of novelty, must show “an inventive step”, and must be of practical use. Particularly, the Patents Act, 1970 defines “inventive step” as a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art. In other words, patent rights are not available for new advances that are merely obvious extensions or modifications of prior designs. Besides, the requirement of difference over prior art, there is a requirement to establish the extent of common general knowledge that exists while

1a) A patent is a new invention, or any new and useful improvement of an existing invention. The patent owner has an exclusive right, in which the invention can normally only be exploited (manufactured, used, sold, imported) by the owner. An invention may relate to a product or process. There is, however, an important distinction between a utility patent and a design patent. A utility patent protects the functional aspects of an invention; a design patent protects only the appearance of an invention and not its structure or utilitarian features. Moreover, a utility patent covers any process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof. A design patent covers any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. The word “useful” is critical in differentiating between utility patent and design patent. Despite their cleverness and novelty, many design patents lack utility. The shapes or ornamentations that make up a design do not necessarily perform any function or contribute to the utility of the underlying article. Nevertheless, the design clearly can have commercial value without having a functional aspect. For instance, the shape of a particular brand of a sippy cup lid may influence purchasing decisions due to its familiarity or appeal.

The Coalition for the 21st Century Patent Reform (“the Coalition”) is made up of more than 40 pharmaceutical and technology-based corporations. Each of the members of the Coalition operates major research, development, and manufacturing facilities in the U.S. and sells their products abroad. Members of the coalition believe

Therefore, protection of patents is one of the key conditions necessary for further development of the pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, non-efficient legislation that does not provide the necessary level of patent protection is one of the factors that hamper expansion of “Big Pharmaceutical” companies to the developing countries8.

The rejection of this patent by the European Patent Office comes as a major milestone in the Intellectual Properties legal space. There are direct short term and long-term implications on the future of international patenting laws and the related stakeholders.

There exist several areas where further research and development is essential to promote the longevity of mankind and enhance the quality of life, and since the aim of the patent system is to promote innovation, it incentivises the same by looking after the financial aspect of the research through funds and research grants. At the same time, certain domains of extremely important research, requiring heavy funding, fall into the patent-ineligible category, hit by one or more of the clauses of the patent related

Patent is an exclusive rights that uses to protect intellectual property rights. In recent years, with the development of electronic technology and the widespread use of electronic platforms, software patents has become a hot topic that frequently discussed by the public. To a certain extent, the patent brought many exclusive economic rights to the product inventors; the inventors can get a lot of additional economic benefits with their product patent, especially in terms of software patent. However, on the other hand, the negative effects of patents also should not be underestimated, such as it might obstruct creativity, and it might cause an unnecessary litigation in order to compete the patent. Compared to the positive effects of the patent, the negative effects of the patent seems to be more prominent. This essay will discuss the usefulness and the harmfulness of patent from three parts. In the first part, the essay will briefly discuss the concept of the patent and its general applications. Then, it will analyze the disadvantages of patent. Finally, the essay will explore the effective solution for the vicious competition of patent.