Pathology of the Inventive Step Requirement in the Patent Law with a Look at Iranian Law

Hamed  Najafi

doi:10.6000/2817-2302.2023.02.05

Authors

Hamed Najafi PhD in Private Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Iran https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0914-2059

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6000/2817-2302.2023.02.05

Keywords:

Pathology, Inventive Step, Economic Bases, Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art

Abstract

The of the inventive step requirement, which apparently guarantees the growth of innovation and pursues industrial and economic development, despite enjoying some benefits, has always faced challenges, and in some cases such challenges are in conflict with the basis of the patent system, and it shows that the patent system is not always socially useful. The analysis of the mentioned challenges is mainly based on the economic principles and assessment tools of the requirement, i.e., examiners and person having ordinary skill in the art. Iran's patent system can also be criticized in terms of legislation and implementation and needs to be reformed. In this article, we intend to first examine the economic pathology regarding the assessment of the inventive step requirement in the patent system, then present the appropriate criterion that is similar to the copyright system, and explain the necessary suggestions.

References

Jafarzadeh, Mirqasem and Mahmoudi, Asghar, (2004), substantive requirements of patent protection from the point of view of judicial procedure and patent administration, legal research, 44, Tehran.

------------------------, (2006), International Patent System: Fields and Necessities, Legal Research, 44, Tehran.

Sadeghi-Moghadam, Mohammad Hassan, Ghafarifarsani, Behnam, (2013), Spirit of competition law (comparative study on the objectives of competition law), Judicial Law Journal, 73, Tehran.

Najafi, Hamed, (1390) Comparative study of the substantive requirement of the inventive step in invention, Master's thesis, University of Qom.

Aoki, Reiko and Spiegel, yossi,(1999), Public disclosure of patent applications R and D, and welfare, The BerglasSchool of Economics. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.146414

Bernstein DM, Atance C, Meltzoff AN, Loftus GR,(2007), Hindsight bias and developing theories of mind, Child Development, Volume 78, Number 4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01071.x

Bessen, James and maskin, Eric (2006), Sequential innovation, patents and imitation, Boston University School of Law and Research on Innovation. Available at: www.researchoninnovation.org,Last Visited At: 1390/10/12.

Denicolo, vincenzo and Halmenschlager, Christine, (2009), Optimal patentability requirements with fragmented property Rights, USA. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1510102

Denicolo, Vincenzo and zanchettin, piercorlo,(2002), How should forward patent protection be provided? international journal of Industrial organization, 20, USA. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(01)00080-7

Denicolo, Vincenzo, (2008), Economic theories of the nonobviousness requirement for patentability: A Survey, Lewis and Clark law review, Vol. 12:2, USA. Available at: law.lclark.edu, Last Visited At: 1390/10/6.

Doug Lichtman & Mark Lemley, (2007), Rethinking Patent Law’s Presumption of Validity, 60 STAN. L. REV. Available at: papers.ssrn.com, Last Visited At: 1390/8/15.

Dumbraveanu, Radu, (2009), Assessment of inventive step, faculty of law, Lund University. Available at: Lup.lub.lu.se, Last Visited At: 1390/10/7.

Eisenberg, Rebecca S, (2004) Obvious to whom? Evaluating Inventions from the Perspective of PHOSITA, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 19:885. Available at: Btlj.org/data/articles, Last Visited At: 1390/9/17.

Encaoua, David, Guellec, Dominique, Mart´ınez, Catalina, (2006), Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis, Research Policy, no. 35, Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.07.004

Erkl, Nisvan and Scotchmer, Suzanne,(2007), scarcity of ideas and options to invest in Rand D”, California, competition policy center, institute of business and economic research, uc Berkeley. Available at: www.asb.unsw.edu.au, Last Visited At:1390/10/11.

Heller .A .Michael. And Eisenberg, Rebecca S.,(1998), Can patents deter innovation? The Anticommunist in biomedical research Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, SCIENCE, vol. 280. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5364.698

Hunt M. Robert,(2004), Patentability, industry structure, and innovation, the journal of industrial economics, No. 3, Philadelphia. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1821.2004.00232.x

Idermark, Michael, (2009), Patentability in the Post-Genomic Era, Master of Laws thesis, 30 ECTS credits, Stockholm University,Department of Law. Available at: www.juridicum.su.se,Last Visited At: 1390/9/19.

Kou, Zonglai ‘Rey, Patrick Wang, Tong, (2010), Nonobviousnessand Screening. Available at: papers.ssrn.com, Last Visited At: 1390/8.16.

Kunin Stephen g. and Signore Philippe J .C, (2008), A Comparative Analysis of the Inventive Step Standard in the European and Japanese Patent Offices from a Us Perspective,Ip Ltigator. Available at: Aspi.asso.fr, Last Visited At: 1391/8/25.

Mandel N Gregory, (2008), another missed opportunity: the supreme courts failure to define nonobviousness or combat hindsight bias in ksr v Teleflex, Lewis and Clark law review, vol.12:2, USA. Available at: Papers.ssrn.com, Last Visited At: 1390/9/18.

--------------- (2008), how The non – obvious problem: how the indeterminate Nonobviousness standard produces excessive patent grant, university of California, Davis, vol, 4: 57. Available at: Papers.ssrn.com, Last Visited At: 1390/9/19.

--------------------------- (2007) Patently Non-Obvious II: Exprimental Study On The Hindsight Issue Before The Supreme Court In Ksr V. Telefelex, Yale Journal OF Law &Technology. Available at: Papers.ssrn.com, Last Visited At: 1390/10/6.

Meniere, Yann, (2004), Non obviousness and complementary innovation, Cerna- Ecole NationaleSupérieure des Mines de Paris. Available at: Www.cerna.ensmp.fr, Last Visited At: 1390/8/19.

Schuett, Florian,(2009), inventors and impostors: an economic analysis of patent examination, European university institute. Available at: ideas.repec.org, Last Visited At: 1390/10.25.

Scotchmer, S. (1991).Standing on the shoulders of giants: Cumulative research and the patent law. Journal of Economic Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555499

Scotchmer, S., & Green, J. (1990). Novelty and disclosure in patent law. RAND Journal of Economics Vol. 2 1, No. I Available at: www.people.hbs.edu last Visited At:1391/8/26.

Stuart Minor Benjamin & Arti Rai, (2007), who’s Afraid of the APA? What the Patent System Can Learn from Administrative Law, 95 GEO. L.J. 269.RAND Journal of Economics. Available at: Papers.ssrn.com, Last Visited At: 1390/10.28.

Wipo, (2001) The Japanese patent Examination and Training System.GE SHU, Available at: Www.wipo.int ,Last Visited At:1390/11/19.

Wipo, (2008), WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use, Geneva, wipo publishing. Available at: Www.wipo.int, Last Visited At: 1390/10/12.

www.ssaa.ir