tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post939594661078576746..comments2024-03-29T06:53:23.405+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Will it end in tiers? A wind-up to boost secondary protectionVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-91199931995646668302012-03-01T10:05:18.836+00:002012-03-01T10:05:18.836+00:00I fully agree with those who find STPs nearly as p...I fully agree with those who find STPs nearly as pernicious as STDs. <br /><br />For those countries where the standard of invention is lower than for a patent, I agree with Mario Franzosi that they permit protection for the obvious. Is this healthy?<br /><br />For those countries that have the same standard of inventive step the problem is that examination is slow, hence some alternative method is required [plainly getting the patent office to pull their finger out is not practical]. <br /><br />And isn't it strange that countries that have a high standard of examination permit unexamined rights for effectively the same content as examined rights?<br /><br />And isn't it even more strange that different standards of inventive step and novelty in a given country (e.g. China) means that it can be more difficult to revoke a right granted in respect of an obvious product (STP) than a right in respect of an inventive product (Patant)?<br /><br />The fact that STPs are used primarily by the residents of the country concerned simply indicates that STPs represent in practice a non-tariff barrier to trade that hides under the respectable cover of "IP".<br /><br />STPs are pernicious and should be stopped.<br /><br />A modest proposal - if countries do not have a mechanism to accelerate prosecution of patent applications effectively, they should do so - but if this is impossible permit applicants to sue on a searched patent application. At least then the defendant would have a starting point for formulating a defence.Meldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-85711516221382085232012-02-29T22:37:15.189+00:002012-02-29T22:37:15.189+00:00If a technical contribution is non-obvious, it des...If a technical contribution is non-obvious, it deserves and may obtain patent protection.<br /><br />Utility models are designed and intended for something that has a lower level of creativity. Hence, for something WHICH IS OBVIOUS.<br />This is an unavoidable consequence, and everybody has to accept (apart from the Germans: the BGH – in a most criticized decision – says that a Gebrauchmuester has the same inventive level of a patentable invention).<br /><br />So what? Is it legitimate or convenient to grant a monopolistic right to something which is obvious?Mario Franzosinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-36173874785730683602012-02-28T17:56:20.254+00:002012-02-28T17:56:20.254+00:00When I started in practice, before PCT and EPO, I ...When I started in practice, before PCT and EPO, I worked for a company that made electrical and telecom connectors and such. We sought full patents for our products in major countries, for scope and length of protection, but always in Germany asked for a "hilfsGebrauchsmuster" - the auxiliary form of STP - just in case. This, and the Japanese system of allowing conversion of a patent application to a UM application, to my mind allow useful short-term protection against slavish copying.Derek Freybergnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-9356141842732531672012-02-28T14:44:01.371+00:002012-02-28T14:44:01.371+00:00Having first-hand knowledge of STP rights, I can&#...Having first-hand knowledge of STP rights, I can't share the IPKat's sanguine view.<br /><br />Even if they don't have to pass muster before a patent examiner, in principle their whole purpose would be to be able to pass muster in court. Which normally should mean professional drafting, bringing their costs quite close to that of full patents.<br /><br />In practice, the large majority of STPs are self-drafted and hardly worth the paper they're written on. Worse, they often create an unwarranted sense of safety among SMEs and individual inventors, sometimes even spurring hopeless litigation.<br /><br />Furthermore, even when they are used professionally, it's often for the wrong reasons: either the owner knows there is plenty of relevant prior art and nevertheless wants to dissuade competitors, or he wants a handy chip to claim subsidies, tax credits or perform shady transfer-pricing operations. <br /><br />In the worst case, they may be used to take advantage from local patent law quirks, such as, for instance, when public prior use abroad is not considered as prior art for STPs. I've had more than one client who has found to his surprise that Chinese competitors had registered Chinese utility model patents on features of his existing products, and that it was not possible to invalidate those utility model patents absent some written disclosure of that feature prior to the filing date.<br /><br />I used to be favourable to STPs as a means of providing protection to less-than-wealthy inventors. However, the actual experience is far less lofty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74060747998931674712012-02-28T14:37:02.206+00:002012-02-28T14:37:02.206+00:00I'm all for time-limited, monopolies for innov...I'm all for time-limited, monopolies for innovations that deserve one, but not a petty/utility model, absolutely not. No! Nein! Non! Nej!<br /><br />Nothing can help the SME/lone inventor more than a kick up the proverbial. If they want to be pandered like babies then send them some Pampers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com