Chapter 23: Patents and Patent Policy1 Patents and Patent Policy.
Patents as a regulatory tool - UNECE Homepage · Patents as a regulatory tool What patent offices...
Transcript of Patents as a regulatory tool - UNECE Homepage · Patents as a regulatory tool What patent offices...
Patents as a regulatory toolWhat patent offices can do to promote innovation
Nikolaus Thumm (European Patent Office)
UNECE Team of Specialists on Intellectual Property'Intellectual Property and Competition Policy'Geneva, 21 June 2012
Chief Economist
Patent Protection,Finding the Right Balance
More transparencyPatent Info availableNo incentive for R&D
Market powers failFree riding
Temporary monopolyAccess limitation to IP
without patents with patents
Patents (IP) as a regulatory measure
Protection
Welfare
Problem area?
Too much protection?
Not enough protection?
Feasible measures
Too much protection?
• Limiting research?• ‚Anti-commons‘• Patent thickets• Royalty stacking• Abuse of dominant market poistion (Myriad)• Quality of grant examination?• Trivial patents • General inventiveness
Background
0
50 000
100 000
150 000
200 000
250 000
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
European Patent Filings (1991- 2011)
Total Filings 244 372
Euro PCT Int. Phase
181 813
Euro Direct 62 559
• Increasing integration of IP in top-level business strategy, especially in high-tech industry
• Increasing strategic use of IP information (technology, market and technology watch)
• Increasing exploitation of IP value as additional source of revenue and benefits (licensing, patent auctions etc.)
• Upcoming legally binding rules to report on IP (e.g. accounting rules)
• IP enforcement (litigation, etc.) with increasing economic impact on companies (revenue, profitability, stock performance, etc.)
Increasing economic importance of industrial proper ty (IP)
Importance of patenting
New inventions versus multiple fillings
Source: WIPO, Mosahid Khan, EC presentation June 2011
0
400,000
800,000
1,200,000
1,600,000
Typ
es o
f App
licat
ion
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
Resident First Filing Non-Resident First Filing Resident Subsequent Direct FilingNon-Resident Subsequent Direct Filing Resident Subsequent Other Filing Non-Resident Subsequent Other FilingResident Subsequent PCT NPE Non-Resident Subsequent PCT NPE
Contribution first & subsequent filings to total gr owth
Source: WIPO, Mosahid Khan, EC presentation June 2011
First Filings: 71.3%Subsequent Direct and Other Filings: 20.4%Subsequent PCT National Phase Entries: 8.3%
First Filings: 48.3%Subsequent Direct and Other Filings: 7.1%Subsequent PCT National Phase Entries: 44.6%
First surge period, 1983-1990 Second surge period, 1 995-2007
The value of patents
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Kum. Anteil der Patente, geordnet nach Wert
Erfas
ster
Ges
amt-P
ortfo
liow
ert,
%
Cumulated share of patents, ordered by patent value
80%are
“irrelevant“
5% really matter
15% matter a
bit
Sha
re o
f por
tfolio
val
ue, %
Data for about 7000 EP-patents. Source: European research project ‚PATVAL‘.
General findings (EPO/OECD survey 2007)
• 20% of European patent owners license out• Firm size: licensing activity U-shaped• Companies from Nordic countries and UK license out more
Motives for licensing out patents:1. Earning revenue2. Entering into cross licensing deals3. Stop others from infringing your patents4. Sharing technology with other companies
Obstacles to licensing:• 24% of patenting firms are willing to but not able to license• Difficulty in finding licensing partners
What can patent offices (regulators) do?
1. Increase transparency, reduce complexity and cost s
2. Ensuring quality of granted patents
3. Improving efficiency
4. Steering applicant's behaviour
5. SME and University support
6. Harmonisation of IP systems
The eight main IPC and ECLA sections
A Human necessities
B Performing operations; transporting
C Chemistry; metallurgy
D Textiles; paper
E Fixed constructions
F Mechanical engineering; lighting; heating; weapons; blasting engines or pumps
G Physics
H Electricity
IPC: approx 70.000 codes; ECLA: approx 138.000 codes
Example 1: Increase transparency
New Classification Scheme:Example Wind Energy
Hierarchy level Description
Example 1: Increase transparency
EPO rated best patent office worldwide for quality for second year in a row
• Surveys by IAM magazine in 2010 and 2011• Target group: 700 in-house counsels and private practitioners
Percentage who feel that patent quality is very goo d/excellent:
In-housecounsels
Private practitioners
EPO 74% 62%
JPO 57% 43%
USPTO 50% 37%
KIPO (Korea) 34% 24%
SIPO (China) 23% 13%
In-housecounsels Private practitioners
EPO 71% 56%
JPO 55% 40%
USPTO 52% 38%
KIPO (Korea) 29% 21%
SIPO (China) 22% 20%
2011
2011 2010
18
Workshop: EPO Economic and Scientific Advisory Board'A high quality patent (a) satisfies the legal patentability requirements at a given patent office, (b) it has been granted, and (c) is likely to withstand invalidity proceedings in court or before an administrative body'
Improve patent quality:-prior art search and disclosure-abstracts/titles-non-patent literature-ownership re-assignments-translations-reporting of prior art by applicants (prior art repository)-opposition and re-examination-international harmonization and cooperation-code of conduct- ...
Example 2: Patent Quality
Potential conflicts between patents and standards
• Patent ambush (Dell, Rambus)• Refusal to license unrevealed patents (LG, Philips)• Failure to agree on FRAND (Qualcomm, Orange
Book)• Third party transfer without pass on of obligations
towards SDO (Nokia, Bosch)• Third party patents not in the standard (Microsoft, i4i)
Potential Remedies
• Early identification and disclosure of essential patents
• Identification of prior art documents coming out of the standardisation process (non-patent literature)
• Closer collaboration between POs and SDOs• Competition surveillance
• Patent pools
Patents and standards:
• 2003 EPO became ETSI member• 2007 EPO became observer at the Global Standards
Collaboration• 2009 MoUs with ETSI and IEEE• 2022 High level technical agreement with
International Telecommunication Union (ITU)• access to standardisation documents for prior art
search• regular exchange with the European Commission
Example 3: Increase transparency and efficiency
TRADITIONAL FEE STRUCTURE: ACCUMULATED CASH FLOWS OVER PATENT LIFE TIME
-€300
-€250
-€200
-€150
-€100
-€50
€0
€50
€100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Filing feesvs.
Initial costs
Search feesvs.
Search costs
Examination fees & internal
renewals
Internal renewal fees vs.
Exam, Opposition,Appeal costs
External renewal feesvs. Opposition and Appeal
costs
Externalrenewal
fees
millions
Final gap -excluding Patent Inf. costs etc.
Fees at EPO amount in EUR Filing (online) 115 European search 1165 International search 1875 Renewal for European application (3rd year) 445 Renewal for European application (10th year) 1495 Examination 1555 Opposition 745 Appeal 1240 Further processing (late payment) (50%) Further processing (other) 240 Claim fee (claim 16- 50) 225
Example 4: Steer applicants behaviour
Knowledge about, use of IP protection
No. of SMEs
?Innocent
non-usersProfessional users
Policy
Example 5: Supporting SMEs and Universities
The unitary patent as a European patent
Europeanpatentapplication
Filing andformalitiesexamination
Search report with preliminaryopinion onpatentability
Grant ofEuropeanpatent
Refusal or withdrawal of application
Substantiveexamination
UNITARY PATENT
for the territories of the 25 participating states
At the request
of the patent proprietor
Limitation/revocation/oppositionproceedings
Appealproceedings
Same grant procedure as for classic European patent
The unitary patent replaces the individual effects of the European patent
in the 25 participating states
Example 6: Harmonisation
Patenting Activity across Different Continents (198 0-2009)(Selected mitigation technologies – Y02, by application authority)