Limiting the Business Method Patent: A Comparison and Proposed Alignment of European, Japanese and United States Patent Law

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition…

Business Method Patents, Innovation, and Policy

The trickle of business method patents issued by the United States Patent Office became a flood after the State Street Bank decision in 1998. Many scholars, both legal and economic, have critiqued both the quality of these patents and the decision itself. This paper discusses the likely impact of these patents on innovation. It first reviews the facts about business method and internet patents briefly and then explores what economists know about the relationship between the patent system and innovation. It concludes by finding some consensus in the literature about the problems associated with this particular expansion of patentable subject matter, highlighting remaining areas of disagreement, and suggesting where there are major gaps in our understanding of the impact of these patents.

Business Method Patents, Innovation, and Policy

The trickle of business method patents issued by the United States Patent Office became a flood after the State Street Bank decision in 1998. Many scholars, both legal and economic, have critiqued both the quality of these patents and the decision itself. This paper discusses the likely impact of these patents on innovation. It first reviews the facts about business method and internet patents briefly and then explores what economists know about the relationship between the patent system and innovation. It concludes by finding some consensus in the literature about the problems associated with this particular expansion of patentable subject matter, highlighting remaining areas of disagreement, and suggesting where there are major gaps in our understanding of the impact of these patents.

Defensive Publishing An Empirical Study

Defensive Publishing denotes publication of an invention with the purpose of creating prior art, and thus preventing patents being granted on this invention. Although widely employed, it has hardly been investigated empirically. Our study is based on 56 in-depth interviews, among others with most industrial firms in the German DAX 30 stock index. We find that 70 percent of the companies in our sample use defensive publications, for up to one third of their inventions. Interestingly, we find that the patent system itself is frequently used for defensive publishing. Our findings also challenge contributions connecting defensive publishing to patent races.Defensive publication, Intellectual property, Freedom to operate, Patens

Current policy issues in the governance of the European patent system

The European Parliament has been working towards building a discussion platform and a resource for further policy actions in the field of intellectual property rights. The Science and Technology Options Assessment Panel has set the goal of further enlarging the area of investigation in light of recent policy developments at the European level. In particular, the current study covers current policy issues in the governance of the European patent system, such as the backlog issue, the enhancement of patent awareness within the European Parliament, patent enforcement, the regional dimension of intellectual property in Europe, patents and standardisation, the use of existing patents, and patents and competition. These issues were discussed in the conference with stakeholders from European to national patent offices, from private to public sector actors. As a result of the conference, it was stated the need for an IP strategy for Europ

Searching for Economic Balance in Business Method Patents

Business method patents (BMPs) award exclusive rights to inventors for novel techniques that perform commercial functions not embodied in specific physical inventions. Perhaps because of the novel and intangible nature of business methods, BMPs commanded little attention from economists, even though legal scholars have covered selected economic issues implicated by BMPs in qualitative terms. In this Essay, we hope to shed some light on the issue by considering economic arguments for awarding patents for business concepts. Many of these arguments focus on the wisdom of broad and exclusive rights in sectors that are critical for economic growth, where innovation is dynamic and incremental, and where standards and network effects are significant. In our view, economic analysis cannot support the BMP system as it currently operates. This conclusion is buttressed by the limited empirical evidence available for BMPs. In brief, the patent system is imbalanced in favor of inventors to the detriment of the public good. Thus, Congress and the USPTO should significantly modify the standards and procedures for granting and enforcing business method patents

The Uneasy Case for Patent Federalism

Nationwide uniformity is often considered an essential feature of the patent system, necessary to fulfill that system’s disclosure and incentive purposes. In the last few years, however, more than half the states have enacted laws that seek to disrupt this uniformity by making it harder for patent holders to enforce their patents. There is an easy case to be made against giving states greater authority over the patent system: doing so would threaten to disrupt the system’s balance between innovation incentives and a robust public domain and would permit rent seeking by states that disproportionately produce or consume innovation. There is, nevertheless, an uneasy case that this particular form of patent federalism may be a good thing. The federal patent system has systemic flaws that lead to low-quality patents, nuisance patent litigation, and patent trolls exploiting asymmetric bargaining power. And efforts to address these flaws have faltered, or have had limited effects, due to public-choice dynamics in the patent system, so the scope of patent protections has expanded over time without regard to the system’s purpose of encouraging innovation. States may help address some of these problems not in spite of, but because of, their own flaws. States have their own public-choice dynamics that happen to offset some of the flaws of the federal system. State anti-patent laws have been driven largely by small businesses and local small-business groups, which, unlike most patent holders, have preexisting influence in state government. And the laws they have crafted using this influence are well-targeted to affect only the most troublesome patent cases: nuisance cases, cases asserting low-quality patents, and cases targeting end users. States pushing back with anti-patent laws, then, may represent an effective second-best solution to the problem of harmful patent assertions. Moreover, recognizing the dynamics that led to these laws may provide helpful insights in designing federal patent reforms