For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Wednesday, 12 January 2005

THE PATENT THAT ATE UP THE WORLD

Did you know that the US is seeking a worldwide patent? The IPKat came across the following statement on the Committee of the Judiciary website:

Single, Low-Cost World Patent. The cost to U.S. companies and inventors of applying for and obtaining separate patents in each of 150 or more countries is prohibitive. Indeveloping countries and even in Europe, patent fees are at such high levels that they constitute a tax on innovation. European government fees to obtain andmaintain a patent are more than ten times the fees in the U.S. In addition, the expense of retaining separate patent attorneys or agents in each foreign country is burdensome and expensive. The United States could take a leadership role in negotiating an agreement under which countries would give full faith and credit to patents granted by an international organization or one of the three largest patent offices in the world– the U.S. Patent Office, the European Patent Office, or the Japanese Patent Office. Countries giving full faith and credit would charge a minimal fee for patenting in that country, and it would be unnecessary to retain separate patent attorneys or agents to obtain a patent in that country. The obstacles to negotiating and implementing such an arrangement would be formidable, but a single low-cost world patent is the best long-term approach to obtaining effective world-wide patent protection for U.S. companies and inventors. [Emphasis is entirely feline in origin.]

The IPKat wonders how countries other than the Big Three will feel about this (or even the two of the three who find their services surplus to requirements). He also wonders if the doctrine of “central attack” would apply (where if an IP right is found to be invalid in its home country, its registrations in other countries are also invalidated).

More world domination here, here, here and here

1 comment:

Peter Groves said...

I don't profess to know anything about the Japanese system, but I do know enough about the US patents system to realise that it bears only a passing resemblance to the European one. Recognising US patents here would introduce a new dimension to the "softare patents" debate, wouldn't it? And what is the total cost (including attorneys' fees) of getting a US patent? As for central attack, that would be fine if you had to start in your home country but this scheme sounds as if it would be more likely to result in everyone filing in the US first. I would have hoped for more sense on the part of the House of Representatives Committee of the Judiciary, and I certainly hope (though this may be misplaced) that our government isn't as daft!

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':