Recently I read an article about how abstractly drafted patents can be the killer seeds for inventions. What is a long term solution so that patents will not be the terminators to the invention rather catalysts or accelerator?
More details on: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21591206-congress-takes-aim-patent-abusers-trolls-hill?
The problem with the patent troll issue is not "abstract" patents, but a side product of the U.S. patent system. Since patents are a form of property, they should be allowed to be traded from one owner to another. Because software patents are allowed in one form or another under the U.S. patent law, non-inventors or non-practitioners who recognize the value of certain patents can buy and sell patents as they wish. As long as more patents are granted (in the U.S.), more infringement lawsuits will be filed. That is normal.
Obviously, the U.S. patent system should bear part of the blame for the patent troll problem. Certain issued U.S. patents have overly broad patent claims due to the way USPTO examiners negotiate the patent claims with inventors. For example, it is foreseeable that one examiner may not know there is a similar patent application on the same or equivalent technology that is being handled by other examiners or other patent offices. Another possibility is that during the examination period, which may last for years, the scope of originally filed claims may shrink or expand at the end of the prosecution. Still another explanation is that the examiner simple misses a key prior art reference. A recent infringement case (see the reference at the end of this post) between a U.S. Nobel Laureate and a German University president epitomizes the clash between inventors under the U.S. patent system. Thus, although every patent claim may seem justified according to its own prosecution history based on cited prior art references, the patent scope allowed for each patent claim in the backdrop of the whole patent universe may become less justified or even screwed due to the inevitable claim overlap, a by-product of the hiccup of the patent system. That is one problem we can address to reduce such unfortunate, expensive patent litigations.
Reference:
Evonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 09-636 & 10-200, (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2013). Available at: http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Chambers/OtherOpinions/NLH/Opinions/Sep2013/09-636.pdf
For a news report from C&EN News: http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i45/Metathesis-Catalyst-Showdown.html
Hello Feng Tian, Thank you so much for the detailed response. I did not have this much information on the US patent processes and the system. Please let me read further and update this thread.
Actually, such cases are good news for us, the public, in whose name patents are granted. Unless something is new and inventive over what has been published, patents should not be granted for it. Seems a bit harsh? Only if you want the monopoly - remember we don't want the monopoly unless there is a very good reason for it. Clearly, Dr Tian, I seem to have a different view of patent law than yours.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India