Legal Criteria for Determining Patent Eligibility
A patent is a monopoly right that the government grants to an inventor in return for them providing enough details about their creation so that other people can use it. As a result, a patent can be used to stop others from acting in a certain way in connection with an invention that has been awarded protection.[1]
Patent eligibility is a requirement that determines whether or not an invention should be protected by a patent before determining novelty and inventive step.
A.??? NOVELTY
For an innovation to be eligible for patent protection, it must be new. An invention must differ physically or methodically from all previous advances that are accessible to the general public worldwide in order to pass this novelty test. Three categories of novelty are widely recognized by law, and any one of them will meet the need for uniqueness: physical (method or hardware) variations, novel combinations, and novel applications.[2]
There are many different kinds of actions that could be considered prior art and reduce originality. As an illustration, prior art can include any actions that demonstrate that an invention has already been made, patented, or disclosed by the creator or by other parties.
While the broad premise that "the invention must be new" is regularly followed around the world, numerous nations have enacted exceptions that could have major ramifications for anyone looking to obtain patent protection. The single most notable difference between the industrialized nations of the globe is whether or not they grant a "grace period" of any kind or follow a system of "absolute novelty," also known as "strict novelty."[3]
In absolute novelty countries Patent applications for inventions must be filed before any prior art activity in nations that require absolute novelty; otherwise, the invention described in the application will not meet the criteria for novelty. This strict need for uniqueness applies irrespective of the party accountable for the previous art efforts. For instance, if the innovation is disclosed by the inventor before a patent application is filed, this could prevent the patent from being issued or invalidate it due to a lack of novelty. [4]
The majority of countries have laws that adhere to the principles of an absolute novelty system; nevertheless, there are certain outliers to this criterion, including the United States, Japan, China, Taiwan, Republic of Korea, Russia, Australia, and several European nations. Therefore, in one way or another, these nations might be seen as having a grace period, even though it is typically short. While there may be exceptions in different countries, the United States stands out as having the most generous grace period, offering a generous 1-year window between most activities and the filing of the patent application, provided that the invention has not been suppressed, hidden, or abandoned. [5]
Within the sector, there has been disagreement regarding the new modification to the uniqueness requirement criteria. While some contend that the new standards are unnecessarily strict and could stifle innovation, others think they are essential for safeguarding intellectual property rights. In general, it is unclear how these changes will affect the industry.
?B.????? INVENTIVE STEP (NON-OBVIOUSNESS)
Section 103 of the Patent Act of 19521 provides that an object can be patented only if it represents an improvement in the prior art that would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in that art at the time the invention was made, in short, that would not have been obvious to the ordinary artisan.
The philosophy behind the doctrine of obviousness is that the public must not be prevented from doing anything which was merely an obvious extension of what was already known at the priority date. Obviousness must not be measured with respect to prior art alone, it is a requirement of an inventive step.[6]
C.????? INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY
If it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture, an invention is deemed suitable for industrial use. The way the word is understood the term "industry" should be interpreted as broad as feasible. The addition of "including agriculture" highlights the inclusive nature of the term "industry," rather than acting as a boundary. The industrial applicability criterion and the technical character of the innovation criterion are two different things. For the purposes of industrial applicability, the invention does not necessarily have to be useful.[7]
Some nations define "industrial application" more broadly than the definition given above, or at the very least, they define the term "industry" more precisely. For instance, in one nation, an innovation is deemed capable of industrial application if it can be "made or used in economic activities," according to the legislation. Furthermore, an innovation is considered industrially applicable under the laws of another nation if it may be "used in industry, agriculture, public health and other sectors of the economy." Another Legislation states that an innovation is considered to have industrial applicability if its subject matter results in an industrial outcome or output, with industry being defined as being forestry, agriculture, livestock breeding, fisheries, mining, processing industries in the strict sense and services.[8]
?D.????? ENABLEMENT
领英推荐
The enablement requirement refers to the requirement that the specification must describe the invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention. Any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claim so as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention.[9]
COURT DECISIONS IMPACTING PATENT ELIGIBILITY
A significant Supreme Court case in 2014 addressed the question of whether software-related ideas qualify for patents: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. The Court decided that computer-implemented abstract concepts are not patentable unless they contain an innovative concept that makes the abstract idea into something much more than the idea alone. This ruling has affected how patents for software-related inventions are granted and has had a major effect on the software industry.[10]
To sum up, this work has been able to provide a general overview of how patent eligibility is a critical factor in determining whether an invention should be granted patent protection. A thorough discussion of the legal requirements for patent eligibility has been held, with a special emphasis on the novelty criterion. This highlights the need of confirming that an invention is new and has not been previously disclosed in prior art. It has also been investigated how different countries' absolute novelty and grace period regimes differ, with the US standing out for having a generous one-year grace period. The industry's ongoing discussion about how stringent the uniqueness criterion criteria should be emphasizes how crucial it is to strike a balance between innovation and intellectual property protection.
?
3rd year Law student|| Student council member|| Secretary at ALSA-AAU chapter and AAU Sports Club
7 个月Thanks for sharing