US Patents in force in 2000

In my experience, the British Patent Office has been fair, but the Trademark Registry has always worked against the inventor, in favour of a name, in what looks to be blatant discrimination, especially with a foreign name like mine. The matter of costs, and that includes patent application costs, not to mention the cost in time dealing with an application (especially litigation) is prohibitive. Inventors and traders get a raw deal compared to artists, writers and film makers, where copyright protection is free.

In the UK a patent is not worth the paper it is written on, in commercial terms. No bank will lend money against it for you to be able to develop and market a product. You'd have to be German for that where they have  progressive vision and invest for the future - recognizing that future growth rests on technological development. 

For all these reasons, it is not worth trying to protect innovation in the UK as a lone inventor. Big business can afford the spiraling costs of their research, not the little man, who is usually the person with the idea. Then there is the unreasonable 20 year time limit and unreasonable repeat fees, whether market developed or not. If your invention is too far ahead of its time, as mine were, you are just giving your ideas away because if the market is not ready for doing something better - no amount of trying to change attitudes will work. Take electric vehicles, nobody wanted them while oil was cheap and global warming was unheard or. What a waste. Not just the idea, the time, money and sweat that it took to develop that idea, with no hope of recovering your life savings, let alone any real chance of benefiting from the efforts of your labors. There is only a short lived prestige - but what is that really worth? Nothing. Don't waste your time, write a book or start painting pictures. Then again if you really want to enjoy your work, write songs. These you can leave to your children and they have a long shelf life.

GREEN PATENTS

The proposed Green Patent (GP) system is designed to create a level playing field for innovators who devote a significant proportion of their life to solving social problems that other policies, politics and politicians tend to work against, despite the best will in the world on the part of world leaders looking for change. Such as where a country has become dependent on a dirty energy source such as coal and oil, that releases locked carbon and other pollutants into the atmosphere to create global warming.

Any product or system that alleviates the reliance on dirty technology would be classed as GREEN.

Another example is agricultural livestock for meat production, that creates methane and uses significantly more energy to produce than grain. Meat production is linked to population growth, hence climate change is directly geared to the number of humans on the planet, with carnivores using significantly more of the earth's resources than herbivores.

Any product or system that reduces human preference for energy intensive meats, would be classed as GREEN.


THE PROPOSAL

We need to change the patent system to promote innovation and time invested in development. Where time is money.


HOW?


1. We could extend the life of patents to 50 years. Since it could take that long for some technology to come to fruition - and it may well represent the entire working life of an innovator.

2. Green patents should attract fees in the normal way if they are from companies with profits from sales. But the same patent from an individual of limited means and no trading track record of sales, should be accepted and processed free of charges - by way of an exemption. This would have to be means tested, with other checks to prevent fraudulent applications from suspect entities, and suitable declarations from the applicant(s).

3. Patents would remain in force, with no fees payable, until licensing generates fees and/or operations. At which point the application and renewal fees would be repaid from such income. Not unlike the student loan system in the UK, that allows people to gain knowledge, and pay later.

4. There should be a simplified filing system for Green patents, such as to remove complications for applicants, by way of a single filing in any country in the world.

WHAT IS A PATENT?

A patent is a state granted right to use a process or product in an innovative or novel way in return for disclosure of the invention.  A patent usually last for a maximum of 20 years, but check with your local office.  Fees are payable every year to keep a patent in force and each year the fees rise.  There are drawbacks to the patent system which is now seen by a growing number of inventors to be unfair. This is because writers and musicians gain copyright free of all charges. A copyright lasts the life of the originator + 50 years after his or her death.  Not only does it cost significant sums to gain a patent, but in many cases the inventor does not have the time to get a product to market and recover his investment.  Hence, the whole exercise can be a complete waste of time and the idea is given away for nothing, contrary to the ethos behind the granting of letters patent.  Where the law says a person in entitled to benefit from the efforts of his labours, it would seem this is not the case where a patent application is filed and subsequently published. So don't file and don't publish anywhere else.

An inventor will receive a certificated similar to the above Design Registration Certificate, headed Certificate of Grant of Patent.

James Dyson, inventor of the famous Dyson bag-less vacuum cleaner, is one high profile advocate of a worldwide review in line with the Human Rights Acts.  General information on how to register a patent may be obtained from the Patent Office on 01633 814000 or via their website: www.patent.gov.uk  You may care to review any decision to apply and might we suggest that you lobby your MP for a review of a law, which apparently discriminates against engineers in favour of artists. That must be wrong, were engineering is essential, but art is not necessary to be able to live.

The procedure for granting patents, the requirements placed on the patentee and the extent of the exclusive rights vary widely between countries according to national laws and international agreements. Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must be new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable. The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent or exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the invention.

Definition

The term "patent" usually refers to a right granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. The additional qualification "utility patents" is used in countries such as the United States to distinguish them from other types of patents but should not be confused with utility models granted by other countries. Examples of particular species of patents for inventions include biological patents, business method patents, chemical patents and software patents.

Some other types of intellectual property rights are referred to as "patents" in some jurisdictions: industrial design rights are called "design patents" in some jurisdictions (they protect the visual design of objects that are not purely utilitarian), plant breeders' rights are sometimes called "plant patents", and utility models or Gebrauchsmuster are sometimes called "petty patents". This article relates primarily to the patent for an invention, although so-called petty patents and utility models may also be granted for inventions.

Law - Effects

Contrary to a common public misconception, a patent is not a right to practice or use the invention. Rather, a patent provides the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent, usually 20 years from the filing date. A patent is, in effect, a limited property right that the government offers to inventors in exchange for their agreement to share the details of their inventions with the public. Like any other property right, it may be sold, licensed, mortgaged, assigned or transferred, given away, or simply abandoned.

The rights conveyed by a patent vary country-by-country. For example, in the United States, a patent covers research, except "purely philosophical" inquiry. A U.S. patent is infringed by any "making" of the invention, even a making that goes toward development of a new invention - which may itself become subject of a patent. In contrast, Australian law permits others to build on top of a patented invention, by carving out exceptions from infringement for those who conduct research (e.g. for academic purposes) on the invention, or develop further inventions based on the patented invention.

A patent is an exclusionary right. It gives the patent owner the right to exclude others from infringing the patent. That does not, however, necessarily give the owner of the patent the right to exploit the patent. For example, many inventions are improvements of prior inventions which may still be covered by someone else's patent. If an inventor takes an existing patented mouse trap design, adds a new feature to make an improved mouse trap, and obtains a patent on the improvement, he or she can only legally build his or her improved mouse trap with permission from the patent holder of the original mouse trap, assuming the original patent is still in force. On the other hand, the owner of the improved mouse trap can exclude the original patent owner from using the improvement.

A sample Certificate of Filing.

Enforcement

Patents can generally only be enforced through civil lawsuits (for example, for a US patent, by an action for patent infringement in a United States federal court), although some territories (such as France and Austria) have criminal penalties for wanton infringement. Typically, the patent owner will seek monetary compensation for past infringement, and will seek an injunction prohibiting the defendant from engaging in future acts of infringement. In order to prove infringement, the patent owner must establish that the accused infringer practices all of the requirements of at least one of the claims of the patent (noting that in many jurisdictions the scope of the patent may not be limited to what is literally stated in the claims, for example due to the "doctrine of equivalents").

An important limitation on the ability of a patent owner to successfully assert his or her patent in civil litigation is the accused infringer's right to challenge the validity of that patent. Civil courts hearing patent cases can and often do declare patents invalid. The grounds on which a patent can be found invalid are set out in the relevant patent legislation and vary between countries. Often, the grounds are a sub-set of the requirements for patent-ability in the relevant country.

The vast majority of patent rights, however, are not determined through litigation, but are resolved privately through patent licensing. Patent licensing agreements are effectively contracts in which the patent owner (the licensor) agrees not to sue the licensee for infringement of the licensor's patent rights, usually in return for a royalty or other payment. It is not uncommon for companies engaged in complex technical fields to enter into dozens of license agreements associated with the production of a single product. Moreover, it is equally common for competitors in such fields to license patents to each other under cross-licensing agreements in order to gain access to each other's patents. A cross license agreement could be highly desirable to the mouse trap developers discussed above, for example, because it would permit both parties to profit off each other's inventions.

The United Nations Statistics Division reports that USA was the top market for patents in force in 2000 closely followed by the EU and Japan.

Ownership

In most countries, both natural persons and corporate entities may apply for a patent. The entity or entities then become the owners of the patent when and if it issues.

In the United States, however, only the natural person(s) (i.e. the inventor(s)) may apply for a patent. If a patent issues, then each person listed as an inventor owns the patent separately from the other. For example, if two inventors are listed on a patent, then each one may grant licenses to the patent independently of the other, absent an agreement to the contrary.

It is common in the United States for inventors to assign their ownership rights to a corporate entity^. Inventors that work for a corporation, for example, often are required to assign their ownership rights to their corporation as a condition of their employment. Independent inventors often assign their ownership rights to a single entity so that only one entity has the right to grant a license.

The ability to assign ownership rights increases the liquidity of a patent as property. Inventors can obtain patents and then sell them to third parties. The third parties then own the patents as if they had originally made the inventions themselves.

Governing laws

The grant and enforcement of patents are governed by national laws, and also by international treaties, where those treaties have been given effect in national laws. Patents are, therefore, territorial in nature.

Commonly, a nation forms a patent office with responsibility for operating that nation's patent system, within the relevant patent laws. The patent office generally has responsibility for the grant of patents, with infringement being the remit of national courts.

There is a trend towards global harmonization of patent laws, with the World Trade Organization (WTO) being particularly active in this area. The TRIPs Agreement has been largely successful in providing a forum for nations to agree on an aligned set of patent laws. Conformity with the TRIPs agreement is a requirement of admission to the WTO and so compliance is seen by many nations as important. This has also led to many developing nations, which may historically have developed different laws to aid their development, enforcing patents laws in line with global practice.

A highly notable international convention related to patents is the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property which was initially agreed in 1883. The Paris Convention sets out a range of basic rules relating to patents, and although the convention does not have direct legal effect in all national jurisdictions, the principles of the convention are incorporated into all notable current patent systems. The most significant aspect of the convention is the provision of the right to claim priority: filing an application in any one member state of the Paris Convention preserves the right for one year to file in any other member state, and receive the benefit of the original filing date. Because the right to a patent is intensely date-driven, this right is fundamental to modern patent usage.

The authority for patent statutes in different countries varies. In the United States, the Constitution empowers Congress to make laws to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." The laws Congress passed are codified in title 35 of the United States Code and created the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In the UK, substantive patent law is contained in the Patents Act 1977 as amended.

In addition, there are international treaty procedures, such as the procedures under the European Patent Convention (EPC) (administered by the European Patent Office (EPO)), and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) (administered by WIPO and covering 137 countries), that centralise some portion of the filing and examination procedure. Similar arrangements exist among the member states of ARIPO, OAPI, the analogous treaties among African countries.

In European patent law, the EPC has effect in 32 European states (as of March 2007), including all European Union member states. The EPO examines and grants "European patents" which, subject to formal requirements, then acquire the same status and force as national patents under the national laws of such EPC contracting states as the applicant designates. The EPC remits almost all post-grant substantive issues regarding to European patents to national law.

The PCT does not provide a central, international, granting authority, but rather allows a number of the common procedural steps required to obtain a patent to be carried out for a single application. The PCT system is therefore an efficient route to obtaining a patent in a large number of countries as many of the steps need only be performed once. A PCT application also delays many of the highly expensive stages of prosecuting a patent.

Application and prosecution

A patent is obtained by filing a written application at the relevant patent office. The application contains a description of how to make and use the invention and, under some legislations, if not self evident, the usefulness of the invention. The patent application may or must also comprise "claims". Claims define the invention and embodiments for which that the applicant wants patent rights to.

In more details, to obtain a patent, an applicant must provide a written description of his or her invention in sufficient detail for a person skilled in the art (i.e., the relevant area of technology) to make and use the invention. This written description is provided in what is known as the patent specification, which often is accompanied by illustrating drawings. Some countries, such as the United States, further require that the specification disclose the "best mode" of the invention (i.e., the most effective way, to the best of the inventor's knowledge, to make or practice the invention). In addition, at the end of the specification, the applicant must provide one or more claims that define what the applicant regards as his or her invention. A claim, unlike the body of the specification, is a description designed to provide the public with notice of precisely what the patent owner has a right to exclude others from making, using, or selling. Claims are often analogized to a deed or other instrument that, in the context of real property, sets the metes and bounds of an owner's right to exclude. The claims define what a patent covers. A single patent may contain numerous claims, each of which is regarded as a distinct invention.

For a patent to be granted, that is to take legal effect, the patent application must meet the legal requirements related to patent-ability.

Once a patent application has been filed, most patent offices examine that application for compliance with the requirements of the relevant patent law. If the application does not comply with all of the requirements, the objections are usually communicated to the applicant or his or her patent agent or attorney, who can then respond to those objections to attempt to overcome them and obtain the grant of a patent.

In most countries, there is no requirement that the inventor build a prototype or otherwise reduce his or her invention to actual practice in order to obtain a patent. The description of the invention, however, must be sufficiently complete so that another person with ordinary skill in the art of the invention can make and use the invention without undue experimentation.

Once granted the patent is subject in most countries to renewal fees, generally due each year, to keep the patent in force - and that is the snag. If there is no immediate market for the goods, a patentee is paying out for something with no return. Most inventors do not realise the huge cost involved and surrender a patent because of the crippling financial burden - usually having suffered a substantial loss - many losing their houses and going bankrupt.

ECONOMICS

Rationale

Ii is a common misconception that there are four primary incentives embodied in the patent system:

1. the incentive to invent in the first place; 

2. the incentive to disclose the invention once made; 

3. the incentive to invest the sums necessary to experiment, to produce, and finally get the invention on the market; 

4. and the incentive to design around and improve upon earlier patents.

1. Unfortunately patents do not provide incentives for economically efficient research and development (R&D) because of the high cost of the patent and the fact that many inventions are from individuals of limited means and not corporations with a large R&D budget. Many large modern corporations have annual R&D budgets of hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars leaving them to believe that they know all there is to know, and so are loath to enter into agreements with individuals who may have acquired patent rights - because they know that that know-how will soon be available to them free of charge and without any cost attaching. History shows us that individuals come up with most of the ground breaking ideas - not corporations. Invention is as the result of a lateral spark, not grinding research.

2. Without patents, R&D spending would be significantly less or eliminated altogether, but this would not stop technological advances or breakthroughs, because of the spark of lone inventors. The present patent system thus works to persuade corporations to maintain R&D budgets, and to give them a virtual monopoly on intellectual property and finance for developing that intellectual property. This second justification does not give inventors any real protection for their ideas, more, it tricks them into believing that they might benefit from patent protection, when in fact no such protection exists where a corporation can freely copy their work secure in the knowledge that the lone inventor cannot afford to litigate in the patent of trademark courts - and that if they were to try, the establishment - especially the trademark courts would wipe them out with costs awards left right and center, as clever corporate lawyers used the system to win by attrition. This is the real world. It has been designed by corporations for corporations and shareholders, with politicians simply going along for the ride - in some case to protect their investments in corporations.

The notion of disclosing innovations into the public domain for the common good, is counter productive to the aim of 'letters patent' to protect the ideas of the inventor. As described above an inventor does not have the legal protection of patents, because they do not have the wherewithal to litigate. For this reason it is better to keep their inventions secret, until governments wake up to the facts. The facts are that inventors need to eat and pay mortgages too. And that is why so many inventors end up bankrupt. The system is grossly unfair when compared to writers and artists who benefit free of charge from copyright.

3. In many industries (especially those with high fixed costs and either low marginal costs or low reverse engineering costs - computer processors, software, and pharmaceuticals being prototypical examples), once an invention exists, the cost of commercialization (testing, tooling up a factory, developing a market, etc.) is far more than the initial conception cost. (For example, the internal "rule of thumb" at several computer companies in the 1980s was that post-R&D costs were 7-to-1). Unless there is some way to prevent copies from competing at the marginal cost of production, companies will not make that productization investment. What this means is that by the time a product may be developed by a lone inventor, his or her patent will have expired. Again, what is the point of a patent that has no chance of providing the owner of those rights, any real prospect of benefiting from the invention. Here we come back to the unfairness of the patent system, where an artist, writer or film maker has no such limitations.

4. Patent rights do not create an incentive for companies to develop workarounds to patented inventions for all the reasons above. Products will be improved not because of any temporary state granted right, but because in order to sell their goods, companies must offer some incremental market advantage.

The small-time inventor cannot use the exclusive right status to become a licensor, because companies know they can outgun him or her financially. It is utter nonsense to suggest otherwise and anyone who does so is not speaking from real life experience.

Criticism

The four cited incentives is not achieved by the patent system. The patent system has countervailing costs, and those costs fall more heavily in some contexts than others. There are many critics and criticisms of patents and this has resulted in the formation of a large number of groups who oppose patents in general, or specific types of patents, and who lobby for their abolishment.

One criticism is that a patent confers a "negative right" upon a patent owner, permitting them to exclude competitors from using or exploiting the invention, even if the competitor subsequently develops the same invention independently. This may be subsequent to the date of invention, or to the priority date, depending upon the relevant patent law. This argument must be viewed in the context of corporations effectively taking control of the patents that they should not have rights to.

Another criticism is that monopolies may create inefficiency. If the grant of a patent is the grant of a monopoly, the patent system may stifle competition and result in higher prices, lower quality, and shortages. In this context, patents are not socially optimal but are considered to be second best alternatives. The solution is to grant protection to small inventors, to include state funded legal assistance, provided that the inventor licenses his or her invention to all companies at a low rate - to encourage competition.

Another theoretical problem with patent rights was proposed by law professors Michael Heller and Rebecca Sue Eisenberg in a 1998 Science article. Building from Heller's theory of the tragedy of the anticommons, the professors postulated that intellectual property rights may become so widely fragmented that, effectively, no one can take advantage of them as to do so would require an agreement between the owners of all of the fragments.

Since at least the early 1980s, patent offices around the world have accepted that computer programs can lie within the realm of patentable subject matter, although the regulations for when a computer program is a patentable invention differ markedly between countries. It is argued that the resulting software patents inhibit innovation in contrast to the underlying purpose of patents.

In response to perceived problems with the grant of patents, and the evolving nature of technology and industry, there is on-going debate about, and reform of, patent systems around the world. The TRIPs agreement, developed by the WTO has led to the alignment of many patent systems with regard to certain controversial issues, such as what can be protected by patents and the issue of compulsory licences in cases of national need.

Etymology

The term "patent" originates from the Latin word patere which means "to lay open" (i.e., make available for public inspection) and the term letters patent, which originally denoted royal decrees granting exclusive rights to certain individuals or businesses.

History

There is evidence suggesting that something like patents was used among some ancient Greek cities. The creator of a new recipe was granted an exclusive right to make the food for one year, and a similar practice existed in some Roman cities.. Patents in the modern sense originated in Italy in 1474. At that time the Republic of Venice issued a decree by which new and inventive devices, once they had been put into practice, had to be communicated to the Republic in order to obtain the right to prevent others from using them.

England followed with the Statute of Monopolies in 1623 under King James I, which declared that patents could only be granted for "projects of new invention." During the reign of Queen Anne (1702-1714), the lawyers of the English Court developed the requirement that a written description of the invention must be submitted. These developments, which were in place during the Colonial period, formed the basis for modern English and United States patent law.

In the United States, during the colonial period and Articles of Confederation years (1778-1789), several states adopted patent systems of their own. The first Congress adopted a Patent Act, in 1790, and the first patent was issued under this Act on July 31, 1790 (and the subject matter of that patent was for the making of potash).

Organizations and patent offices

For more details on this topic, see Intellectual property organization (including international intergovernmental, non-governmental, non-profit, lobbying organizations, and think thanks, as well as professional associations).  For a list of patent offices, see below.

Treaties, conventions and other legal texts and frameworks

• Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement)

• American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA)

• Budapest Treaty

• Community patent (proposed)

• EU Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions (proposed, then rejected)

• EU Directive on the Patentability of Biotechnological Inventions

• European Patent Convention (EPC)

• European patent law

• European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) (proposed)

• General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)

• Japanese patent law

• London Agreement (concluded but not in force yet)

• Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property

• U.S. Patent Reform Act of 2005

• Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)

• Patent Law Treaty (PLT)

• Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) (proposed)

• Statute of Monopolies 1623

• Strasbourg Convention

• United States patent law

• Applying

  • Should you apply?

  • Costs and timeline

  • How to apply

  • After you apply

• The decision making process

  • Patent law and how we interpret it

  • How we classify

  • Hearings and challenging a decision

• Find patents

  • Using esp@cenet
    What is esp@cenet?

  • By patent number

  • By publication

  • By SPC number

• Journal

  • Patents & Designs Journal

• Managing your patents

  • Changing and renewing

  • Using and enforcing

  • Selling

  • Status

• Other people's patents

  • Using and buying

  • Monitoring

  • Objecting

• Forms and fees

  • PDF and Word versions

EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE

The European Patent Organisation is an intergovernmental organisation that was set up on 7 October 1977 on the basis of the European Patent Convention (EPC) signed in Munich in 1973. It has two bodies, the European Patent Office and the Administrative Council, which supervises the Office's activities. The Organisation currently has 32 member states.

The European Patent Office (EPO) provides a uniform application procedure for individual inventors and companies seeking patent protection in up to 37 European countries. It is the executive arm of the European Patent Organisation and is supervised by the Administrative Council .

The Administrative Council was set up under Article 4, paragraph 2(b), EPC. Detailed provisions relating to the Council can be found in Articles 26 to 36 EPC.

Chairman / Deputy Chairman

Chairman

Roland GROSSENBACHER, Directeur, Institut Fédéral de la Propriété Intellectuelle (CH)
mail : council_chairman@epo.org

Deputy Chairman

Benoît BATTISTELLI, Directeur général, Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (FR)

Grant procedure

How to apply for a patent: a simple guide to the grant procedure 

epoline

Appeals

Search decisions of the boards of appeal
New decisions
Pending decisions
Business distribution scheme
Forms

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE

For over 200 years, the basic role of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has remained the same: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries (Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution). Under this system of protection, American industry has flourished. New products have been invented, new uses for old ones discovered, and employment opportunities created for millions of Americans. The strength and vitality of the U.S. economy depends directly on effective mechanisms that protect new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity. The continued demand for patents and trademarks underscores the ingenuity of American inventors and entrepreneurs. The USPTO is at the cutting edge of the Nation’s technological progress and achievement.

The USPTO is a federal agency in the Department of Commerce. The USPTO occupies five interconnected buildings in Alexandria, Virginia. The office employs over 7,000 full time staff to support its major functions--- the examination and issuance of patents and the examination and registration of trademarks.

The USPTO has evolved into a unique government agency. Since 1991--under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990--the agency has been fully fee funded. The primary services the agency provides include processing patent and trademark applications and disseminating patent and trademark information.

Through the issuance of patents, the USPTO encourages technological advancement by providing incentives to invent, invest in, and disclose new technology worldwide. Through the registration of trademarks, the agency assists businesses in protecting their investments, promoting goods and services, and safeguarding consumers against confusion and deception in the marketplace. By disseminating both patent and trademark information, the USPTO promotes an understanding of intellectual property protection and facilitates the development and sharing of new technologies worldwide.

USPTO programs are conducted under the following principal statutory authorities:

• 15 U.S.C. 1051-1127 contains provisions of the Trademark Act of 1946 that govern the administration of the trademark registration system of the Patent and trademark Office.
  

• 15 U.S.C. 1511 states that the Patent and Trademark Office is under the jurisdiction and supervision of the Department of Commerce.
  

• 35 U.S.C. contains basic authorities for administration of patent laws, derived from the Act of July 19, 1952, and subsequent enactment. Revenues from fees are available, to the extent provided for in appropriations acts, to the Commissioner to carry out the activities of the Office. The Patent and Trademark Office is authorized to charge international fees for activities undertaken pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Deployment of automated search systems of the Office to the public is authorized.
  

• 44 U.S.C. 1337-1338 contains authority to print patents, trademarks, and other matters relating to the business of the Office.

 Patents
      - What can be patented
      - Who may apply for a patent?
 Trademarks
 Copyrights
 Domain names
 Trade secrets
 International IP
 What are patents, trademarks,
          servicemarks, and copyrights?

ABOUT IP AUSTRALIA

Patents - Charter Service Level Commitments

Charter Home | Patents | Trade Marks | Designs | Plant Breeder's Rights | Reports

Examination:

• We are working towards issuing first reports on applications for standard patents within 14 months of receiving the request for examination.

• We will examine and issue a report on your innovation patent within one month of receiving the request for examination.

• We will issue an international search report for your application for a patent within nine weeks of receiving the search copy of the international application unless the application is for more than one invention.

• We will issue an international-type search report for your application for a patent within four weeks of receiving the request for the search, unless the search request covers more than one invention, or we ask you to supply a written search statement.

• We will respond to correspondence relating to the examination of your application within four weeks of receiving it.

• We will achieve 95% compliance with all our published Product Quality Standards (opens in new window).

Hearings:

• We will issue our decision within three months of holding a hearing, unless we receive further submissions or evidence.

Registration:

• We will seal your patent within one month after the opposition period has expired, provided no one has opposed the application and any applicable fees have been paid.

• We will grant your innovation patent, provided you have paid the fee and complied with the formalities, within one month of the application being lodged.

For our current compliance with these commitments, go to our Charter Report.

More Patents statistics are available at our IP Statistics page.

ONLINE SERVICES

Apply for your patent online

What is a patent?

Before you apply

The application process

Maintaining your patent

International applications

Fees

Examples

Search databases

Forms & publications

The Role of the Japan Patent Office

The aim of industrial property (IP) system (general term for patent, utility model, design, and trademark systems) is to contribute to the nation’s industrial development through adequate protection and effective utilization of inventions and other forms of intellectual creations. To help promote science and technology, the IP system is expected to play an increasingly important role in Japan in the 21st century.

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) consists of the General Affairs Department, the Examination Department, the Appeals Department, and other sections and departments. The main functions of these departments include; 1) granting adequate rights for patents, etc., 2) drafting plans for IP policies, 3) international exchange and cooperation, 4) review of the IP system, and 5) dissemination of information on IP. These functions provide for the positive advancement of industrial development.

1. Granting Exclusive Rights for Patents, Etc.

When the JPO receives an application from anywhere in the world, its examiners from the appropriate technical department must first conduct a strict examination of the filed documents from the viewpoint of technological and legal standards in order to determine whether exclusive patent or other rights can or cannot be granted.

If there is an objection to the result of this examination, the Appeals Department is authorized to act as the court of first instance for a local court in strict accordance with the Civil Procedure Code

2. Drafting Plans for Industrial Property Policies

In order to realize a “Nation Built on Intellectual Property” for the future, IP policies must be drafted and implemented to promote; 1) prompt examination of patents, 2) support in the use of IP by regions as well as small and mid-sized enterprises, 3) establishment of a “Japan brand”, 4) anti-counterfeit programs, and 5) create an environment which encourages the “Intellectual Creation Cycle” (the cycle of creation, protection, and exploitation).

3. International Exchange and Cooperation

To establish an IP environment aimed at an international harmonization, the JPO has been actively working on international activities. Specifically, it has been making collaborative efforts with the USPTO and EPO, extending assistance to developing nations in such areas as office computerization, examination processes, and human resources development, and implementing tougher anti-counterfeiting measures.

4. Review of the Industrial Property System

The JPO continues to review and revise related laws and examination standards based on plans drafted for IP policies, and on the results of international negotiations.

5. Dissemination of Information on Industrial Property

To satisfy diversified user needs, the JPO has been expanding IP information services. For example, improvements have been added to the Industrial Property Digital Library (IPDL) services to be provided over the Internet. We also started publishing DVD-ROM version official gazettes.

WIPO CONVENTION ARTICLES

Article 1: Establishment of the Organization
Article 2: Definitions
Article 3: Objectives of the Organization
Article 4: Functions
Article 5: Membership
Article 6: General Assembly
Article 7: Conference
Article 8: Coordination Committee
Article 9: International Bureau
Article 10: Headquarters
Article 11: Finances
Article 12: Legal Capacity; Privileges and Immunities
Article 13: Relations with Other Organizations
Article 14: Becoming Party to the Convention
Article 15: Entry into Force of the Convention
Article 16: Reservations
Article 17: Amendments
Article 18: Denunciation
Article 19: Notifications
Article 20: Final Provisions
Article 21: Transitional Provisions

ATTENTION: Applying for an Industrial Property Right in Japan  2.4.2007

Procedures for Obtaining a Patent Right

Procedures for Obtaining a Utility Model Right

Procedures for Obtaining a Design Right

Procedures for Obtaining a Trademark Right

Schedule of Fees

Schedule of Fees  18.5.2007

Full Refund System on Examination Request Fees  9.8.2006

Obtaining Rights

Priority Documents-Exemption under the Priority Document Electronic Exchange Agreement between the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Japan Patent Office  27.6.2007

Notice regarding Trademark System for Retail and Wholesale Services  14.6.2007

Examination Guidelines for Trademarks  25.5.2007

Examination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model in Japan  4.11.2005

The Trademark Examination Manual  25.8.2004

GUIDELINES FOR WRITING GROUNDS FOR DEMAND FOR DEMANDS FOR APPEALS/TRIALS  3.9.2002

GUIDELINES FOR WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO A GRANTED PATENT AND DEMAND FOR CORRECTION  13.8.2002

Publication of the "Examination Guidelines on Requirement for Disclosure of Information on Prior Art Documents"  30.8.2002

JAPAN PATENT OFFICE (JPO) HANTEI(ADVISORY OPINION ON THE TECHNICAL SCOPE OF A PATENTED INVENTION)  8.6.2002

Revision of the Time Limit for Submitting a Request for Examination  5.9.2001

Policies concerning "Business Method Patents"  30.11.2000

Examination of business-related inventions  10.3.2000

Publication of the "Operational Guidelines on Treatment of Technical information disclosed on the Internet as Prior Art" and the "Operational Guidelines on Treatment of Exceptions to Lack of Novelty of Invention"  25.2.2000

"Examples of examinations on the inventions related to genes (DNA fragments, full-length cDNAs, and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms)"  26.11.1999

Implementing Guidelines for Inventions in Specific Fields(Final Version)

Exemption for Submission of Priority Documents

Changes in procedures and fees effective on and after January 1, 1999

Alphabetical List of Intellectual Property Offices

Regional Offices

References

• http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/what_index.shtml

• DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary (2005) Patent Litigation across Europe, handout available as per this link.

• Assignee (Company) Name. Help Page. U.S. Copyright and Trademark Office (USPTO).

• U.S. Code collection, Title 35 — Patents

• Article 2(2) EPC

• Singer/Stauder, The European Patent Convention, A Commentary, Munich, 2003

• What are the steps in getting a patent?. Questions and Answers on Patents. Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.. 

• the US being a notable exception; see the Maintenance fee (patent) article for more details

• Howard T. Markey (chief judge of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and later of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), Special Problems in Patent Cases, 66 F.R.D. 529, 1975.

• Heller, M.A., & Eisenberg, R.S. (1998). Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science, 280(1 May 1998), 280, 698-701.

• U.S. Patent Activity 1790 to the Present

• Helmut Schippel: Die Anfänge des Erfinderschutzes in Venedig, in: Uta Lindgren (Hrsg.): Europäische Technik im Mittelalter. 800 bis 1400. Tradition und Innovation, 4. Aufl., Berlin 2001, S.539-550 ISBN 3-7861-1748-9

• Wolfgang-Pfaller.de: Patentgesetz von Venedig (German / Italian).

• http://www.patent.gov.uk/about-history-copy.htm, retrieved on December 7, 2006

"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."

Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965)

The Columbian underworld sets the 4th Reich in motion