Revocation no longer has a place in modern patent law

[Name if the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Revocation no longer has a place in modern patent law

Introduction

Intellectual property protection is critical for most innovations, and represents the most dynamic field of legal activity in the initial years of the emergence of technology. Patents are the most important form of intellectual property protection for nanotechnology, given that most products are devices, machines, products, and other innovations eligible for patent protection.

Several major legal issues impact patent protection for innovations. One issue is whether a version of an existing invention or material is eligible for a new patent. Patent law generally requires new innovations to be novel and “nonobvious” refinements of existing patented innovations (or “prior art”) in order to obtain a new patent. Issues will therefore often arise as to whether a version of an existing invention is sufficiently novel and nonobvious to be entitled to a new patent. In most cases, this determination will be strongly influenced by whether the innovation provides unanticipated new functionalities that do not exist in the non-nano version of the product.

Another patent concern is the potential for “blocking patents” and” patent thickets” that prevent new companies from developing new technology products because of patents held by other entities. Given the rapid pace of technology development, patent applications have been concentrated into a narrow time window, resulting in a clustering of patents relative to other technologies in the past where patents were awarded over a much more extended time frame, permitting some key patents to expire before others took effect. In contrast, virtually all technology patents have been issued very recently, creating a “thicket” of patents that innovators must navigate through. In addition, patents have been granted for very broad, fundamental technologies that could serve to pre-empt entire areas of innovation (or at least require licensing payments to the patent holder).

In this paper the author will examine the statement that Revocation no longer has a place in modern patent law. The combination of the strict novelty, inventive step and capability of industrial application requirements and the rules on sufficiency will do the job. Any patents that are nevertheless granted in error will in practice become unenforceable under the new rules on infringement.

Discussion & Analysis

Novelty, inventive step and capability of industrial application requirements

A patent for an invention is granted only if it fulfils novelty, inventive step and industrial application requirements. Novelty of the invention as the first and indispensable condition to patentability has always been a characteristic feature of the invention. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of patent law of the discoveries, inventions and rationalization proposals in 1973 recognized the new decision, if the priority date of the application of the identity or the nature of this decision has not been disclosed to an indefinite number of persons so that it became possible to achieve it. The Soviet legal literature has long and rightly drawn attention to the fact that the novelty of such a definition was not clear enough ...