Skip to main content

Patent Thickets

 PATENT THICKETS

Scholars have used the term “patent thicket” to describe the problem of multiple overlapping rights that can hamper innovation by creating transaction barriers. Patent Thicket is where there are a number of patented inventions that is required for the production of a product. These multiple patents are in many circumstances owned by different individuals and extremely difficult to negotiate license. The problem of patent thickets and troll made it extremely difficult for many products to be put into market without the threat of infringement suits. Much of this thicket of overlapping patent rights results from the nature of the technology; computer hardware and software contain an incredibly large number of incremental innovations. Furthermore, as more patents are issued on incremental inventions, firms seek more patents in order to have enough bargaining chips to gain access to overlapping patents held by others. Questionable patents contribute to the patent thicket. Questionable patents can generate new types of licensing challenges, such as royalties layered on top of royalties, and can increase ambiguity about the patent environment, making business planning more difficult. Questionable patents in patent thickets can frustrate competition by current manufacturers as well as potential entrants. Because a company needs a license to all of the patents that cover its product, it can employ questionable patents to obtain excessive royalties or threaten to sue. For example, a questionable patent claiming a single routine in a software program could be used to hinder the production of the entire software program. This process can deter follow-on innovation and unjustifiably raise costs to businesses and, ultimately, to consumers.

Over the past twenty-five years, however, the scope of patentable subject matter has expanded significantly. For example, the Supreme Court, through two landmark decisions in 1980, held that both man-made, living organisms and computer software constitute patentable subject matter pursuant to Section 101. In 1999, the Federal Circuit ruled that business methods can be patented. Some Hearings participants claimed that patents on computer software and business methods are not necessary to spur the invention, commercial development, or public disclosure of software or business methods. Others disagreed. Some Hearings participants contended that software and business method patents can raise significant competitive concerns and deter innovation, especially because so much of the innovation in those fields builds incrementally on preceding work. This may raise the potential for thickets of patents to hinder, rather than accelerate, innovation and commercial development.

Patent Thickets are not granted merely to enable patentees to enjoy a monopoly for the importation of a patented article. A grant of stronger patents for early generations can weaken the incentives for later generations, who would want to invest in research and development. An excessive emphasis on patenting rather than innovating tends to create anticompetitive practices as a result of the rationale that develops from a fully protected patent system. Therefore the strategy draws on the mala fide use of patent rights to counter market competition, leading to patent thickets which hinder the entry of new firms and the elixir of innovations, which powers the economic engine of growth. The malaise of patent thickets exists in crucial industries comprising of semiconductors, biotechnology, computer software, and the Internet, patent system is creating a patent thicket. The issue of patent thickets tends to arise in industries, which survive, on constant innovation, leading to an intricate construction of patents, which deter and defeat the objective of consumer welfare and innovation. Patent thickets can be strong or weak dependent upon the criterion of difficulty in obtaining the licenses. In the former scenario, the licensing process is tedious, whilst ease in the grant of licenses proscribes the limits in the case of weak patent thickets. The patent thicket in combination with the risk of holdup and formal standard setting turns prickly to the entire gamut of mechanisms espoused to regulate the vices of the patent system and its exploitation. The remedies identified to ‘cut through the patent thicket’ involve cross-licenses and patent pools, which involve transaction costs for their implementation.


Patent Thickets by Velanati Jyothirmai @ Lex Cliq
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more