Significant inaccuracies

Survey monograph on the Law of Patents rarely Previous published such a book was published in 1967. The past 10 years have been a period of intense renovation of patent laws, but information about it scattered on journal articles. And the long-awaited monograph. Unfortunately, it contains a lot of false and contradictory statements. Contradictions notice is relatively simple. For example, on p. 9 reported that the new patent law has been adopted in England, and in the near future will probably be adopted in the UK. Or with. 161 read that in Argentina and Colombia, the patentee is not obliged to exercise the patented invention, further, on p. 163 and 165 — that in Argentina, the law provides a term performance of this obligation, as in Colombia, the sanctions for its failure to execute the.

It is much more dangerous than the false information that not every reader will be able to distinguish from true. For experts in the field of nuclear power claim that the United States allegedly «are not patented, as a rule, all inventions relating to the field of creative activity» (p. 107), and in other countries «are not patented, as a rule, a substance derived by intranuclear transformations «(p. 105). Do not believe it! US Patent Class 176 «Nuclear reactions and devices» contain valuable information; countries where patenting of seized substances obtained by intranuclear transformations — one, two and miscalculated. It is not true that almost all capitalist countries are not patented inventions relating to improvements in weapons (p. 158). They are patentable and patents worldwide, including the United States, where it is not only protected by the invention relating to atomic weapons is not true that only varieties of plants are protected by the laws of South Africa and South Korea (p. 73). Plant patents issued in the United States, the protection of certain plant varieties provided the new patent law of Germany. Do not believe, though Turkey non-patentable methods for producing medicines (p. 105).

Situation is no better with the lighting conditions of patentability. Just as for the Europeans, who saw for the first time the Chinese people, all of them — for one person, authors of the book are presented coincide, absorbing each other, do not differ significantly different criteria for patentability. For example, on p. 75 and 79, says that between the criteria «industrial applicability» (France, Germany and others. Country) and «type of production» (country of the English system of law), «the differences are more a terminological than semantic in nature,» and in the German patent system test industrial applicability includes the utility requirement is no different from that provided in the same criterion of technical progressiveness. In reality, the differences between these criteria are significant. For example, the criterion «type of production» as opposed to the criterion of «industrial applicability» excludes from patent protection, agricultural techniques and methods useful in the control of industry and research. Failure to understand the real content of each of the existing criteria, ignoring the differences between them — one of the main causes of failures on applications for foreign patents. Therefore, in the book of identifying harmful. Dangerous and errors in coverage of benefits for novelty. It is not true that the law of Germany 1976 «is not anticipated by the novelty of … any disclosure within the inventive concept

6 months «(p. 63). In fact, 6-month exemption novelty provided by this law only for two cases of disclosure: the exposure to the respective exhibition and wrongful disclosure by a third party against the will of the inventor or his successor in title. If your invention is publicized in other circumstances, apply to Germany later, the cost of it will be in vain. But at patenting in the United States or Canada do not worry, if the circumstances of the disclosure does not fall under the exemption specified for these countries to 63. In fact, there are much wider benefits, and should not abandon the application in these countries because the invention proved publicized in print or outdoor application within a year prior to filing in the United States or two years before the filing of the application in Canada.

Some blunders allowed in matters of patent clearance and responsibility for patent infringement. It is not true that the United States’ use of the grounds mentioned in any of the items is an invasion of the rights of the patent holder scope «(p. 171). U.S. (and other countries) is broken if you use the whole set of features contained in one of the independent claims and the use of a single sign of any claim shall not be considered an invasion of the rights of the patent owner within the scope of either the US or in other countries. Contrary to what is said on p. 171 and 172, in determining whether the use of the invention in the United States interpreted the formula involving the doctrine of equivalents (see «Questions of invention», 1977 N2 9, p. 15) and Art. 6-a German patent law in 1976 does not allow to establish the scope of protection on the basis of so-called «general inventive concept» (see. «Issues of invention», 1978, N ° 6, p. 14). It is not true that wine is presumed offender in establishing indirect infringement of a patent (p. 175). With indirect infringement liability arises only for intent, which is subject to proof by the plaintiff (the patentee). Contrary to what is said on page 169 and 174, the basis of civil liability is not the fault, but the fact of the unlawful use of the invention, and the wine is not always a condition of liability, and not always the defendant is obliged to prove that he is a different way to make a product, indirectly subject to patent protection issued to a method of manufacture.

These and other errors in the book excludes the possibility to rely on the information contained in it, regardless of the item, you are faced with the issues of foreign patenting of inventions, infringement, liability for patent infringement or other practical issues. Significant errors committed not only in the retelling of the provisions of the copyright law of patents, but also in quotes. On p. 41 incorrectly quoted § 101 of the Patent Law US dropped «product» as one of the four categories of patentable subject matter.

Infidelity and the quote on p. 6 validity of the patent for the first law in the United States was 14 years, not 17. It is unfortunate that such a desired book can not be trusted either large or small.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: