Scope of Permission to Amend the Claim in the Patent Application: A Comparative Study in the United States, Britain and International Documents

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Islamic Azad University Khomeinishahr Branch, Isfahan

2 Ph.D. Candidate in Private Law, University of Isfahan

3 PhD Candidate in Private Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran,

10.22034/law.2023.53613.3192

Abstract

Amendment of claim in application before issuance of the patent is considered accepted in most legal systems of the world. What is being challenged is allowance of the amendment of the claims in the application after the issuance of the patent. The Iranian legislature has limited the possibility of amendment before the issuance of the patent, and his silence regarding the possibility of amendment after the issuance of the patents indicates on impermissibility of them. American and British judicial proceedings insist on the permission of amendments even after the issuance of the patent. The European Patent Convention (EPC) is an important regional document that allows these amendments in terms of legal conditions despite the enumeration of the competitive risks of allowing amendments on the one hand and requirements of balance between rights of inventors and the standards of competition right and antitrust norms on the other hand. Our research is primarily library-based. The authors are trying to draw the legislator's attention to the benefits of the permission of the amendments even after issuance of the patent. And they are also trying to mention the rules governing the limitations of the amendments in the light of discussed jurisdictions

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. الف) منابع فارسی

    - کتاب‌ها

    1. شیخی، مریم (1392). راهبردهای قانونگذاری در حقوق مالکیت صنعتی، تهران: انتشارات خرسندی.
    2. صالحی ذهابی، جمال (1388). حق اختراع، نگرشی تطبیقی، تهران: شرکت سهامی‌انتشار.
    3. میرحسینی، سید حسن (1387). حقوق اختراعات، تهران: نشر میزان.

    - مقالات

    1. پروین، محمدرضا (1389). نقش ادعاهای اختراع در تعیین عرصۀ فنی حمایت‌شده توسط حق اختراع، کنکاشی در زیست فناوری. حقوق پزشکی. 12(4). 71-104.
    2. حبیبا، سعید و مهردار قائم‌مقامی، گلریز (1400). جایگاه ادعاهای مندرج در اظهارنامه‌های ثبت اختراع در محدودۀ حمایتی از اختراعات. تحقیقات حقوقی. 24 (96 ). 38-62.

    Doi: 10.29252/jlr.2022.225451.2082

    1. شاکری، زهرا و جهرمی‌ بهادری، زهرا (1397). سخنی در انواع نظام‌های ثبت اختراع با نگاهی به برخی اصول ثبتی. مجموعۀ مقالات همایش ملی تجلیل از مقام علمی ‌استاد محمدجعفر لنگرودی. 1(1).

    ب) منابع انگلیسی

    - Books

    1. Lionel Bently, Brad Sherman, Dev Gangjee, and Phillip Johnson (2018). Intellectual Property Law, 5th ed, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    2. Martin J. Adelman et al., Randel R.Rader, John RThomas (2014). Cases and Materials on Patent Law, American Casebook Series, West Academic Publishing.

    - Articles

    1. Krasser R. (1992). Possibilities of Amendment of Patent Claims during the Examination Procedure. IIC. 23 ( 4). 467-471.
    • Stephen T. Schreiner & Patrick A. Doody (2006). Patent Continuation Applications: How the PTO’s Proposed New Rules Undermine an Important Part of the U.S. Patent System with Hundreds of Years of History. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y. 88. (01). 556-569.
    • Robert P. Merges (2007). Software and Patent Scope: A Report from the Middle Innings. L. Rev. 85. (01). 1627-1670.
    • Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley (2003) Policy Levers in Patent Law. Berkeley Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper Series. 1-228. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4qr081sg
    • Donald S. Chisum (1992). Patent Law Developments in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit During 1991. U. L. Rev. 41. (14) .869-903.
    • Tun-Jen Chiang (2010). Fixing Patent Boundaries, 108 Michigan. REV. 108.(4).523-575.

    https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Fmlr%2Fvol108%2Fiss4%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

    • Stephen Y.(2014). Improving Patent Quality with Applicant Incentives. J.L. & TECH. 28. (18). 77-136.
    • Greg R. (2018). Amending Patent Claims. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. 32.(1).1-56.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3362043_code1871473.pdf?abstractid=3249589&mirid=1

    • Timothy B. Lee (2018). Why the Roots of Patent Trolling May Be in the Patent Of-Fice, Trolls Love Patents from Examiners who are Lenient” About Patent Vetting. US Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia, Mar 5, 2018 12:15 pm.

     

    • “National Patent Drafting Course”, (2017). Chiang Mai, Thailand October 2 to 6, 2017. Organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Cooperation with Chiang Mai University Department of Intellectual Property, Ministry of Commerce of Thailand and the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) in Thailand and with the Assistance of the Japan Patent Office (JPO). Chiang Mai, October 2 to 6, 2017. https://arstechnica.com/techpolicy/2018/03/why-the-roots-of-patent-trolling-may-be-in-the-patent-office/#p3[https://perma.cc/W4QB-DXH3]

    - Act & International Documents:

    • American invention act, (AIA), 2011.
    • Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), Done at Washington on June 19, 1970, Amended on September 28, 1979, Modified on February 3, 1984, and October 3, 2001,(as in Force from April 1, 2002).
    • Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) (EPC), Signed in Munich on November 29, 2000. On June 28, 2001, the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation Adopted the Final New Text of the EPC 2000. The EPC 2000 Entered into Force on December 13, 2007

    - Cases

    • Abbott Laboratories Limited v. Medinol Limited (2010)
    • AC Edwards v. Acme Signs & Displays Ltd. (1992)
    • Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell Industries (2002)
    • AP Racing v. Alcon Components Ltd (2014)
    • Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
    • Biogen v. Medeva (1997)
    • Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 146 (1989)
    • Bonzel (T.) and Anr v. Intervention Limited and Anr (No. 3) (1991)
    • Brigade (BBS-TEK) v. Amber Valley (2013)
    • Bristol Myers Company v. Manon Freres (1973)
    • Codex Corporation v. Racal Milgo (1983)
    • Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 511 F.3d 1157, 1185 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
    • Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann Co. 304 U.S. 159 (1938)
    • European Central Bank v. Document Security Systems Incorporated (2007)
    • G 2/10 Disclaimer (2012)
    • G 2/88 (1990)
    • G 3/89 Disclaimer (1993)
    • G 11/91 Glu-Gln (1993)
    • G 1/93 (1994)
    • Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (1998)
    • Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 218, 243 (1832)
    • Hallen v. Brabantia (1990)
    • Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) (Whyte’s) Patent (1978)
    • In re Hounsfield, 699 F.2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
    • In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1519 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
    • Kimberly-Clark Worldwide v. Procter & Gamble Ltd & Anor (2000)
    • Kintner v. Atlantic Communication Co., 240 F. 716, 717 (2d Cir. 1917)
    • Lars eric norling and anr. V. EEZ-AWAY (UK) LTD. & ORS (1997)
    • Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 909 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
    • Mack v. United States, 814 F.2d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 1987)
    • Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
    • Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568 (1877)
    • Milliken Denmark AS v. Walk Off Mats (1996)
    • Mölnlycke AB and Anothers v. Procter & Gamble Limited and Anothers (No. 5) (1994)
    • Nokia Corporation v. IPCom GMBH & Co KG (No.3) (2013)
    • Permutit Co. v. Graver Corporation, 284 U.S. 52, 60 (1931)
    • Rambus Inc. v. FTC, 522 F.3d 456, 460–61 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
    • Raleigh Cycle Company Ltd and Another v. H. Miller and Company Ltd (1948)
    • Richardson-Vicks Patent v. Upjohn Company (1995)
    • Sara Lee Household & Body Care Ltd. v. Johnson Wax Ltd. (2001)
    • Siegfried Demel v. Jefferson (1999)
    • Shockley v. Arcan, Inc., 248 F.3d 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
    • Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus, 810 F.2d 1113, 1116–17 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
    • Smith Kline French (SKF) v. Evans Medical (1989)
    • Snitzer v. Etzel, 465 F.2d 899, 902 (C.C.P.A. 1972)
    • Southco Inc. and Another v. Dzus Fastener Europe Ltd. (1990)
    • Spring Foam v. Playhut (2000)
    • Strix Ltd. v. Otter Controls Ltd. (1995)
    • Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) (2013)
    • Symbol Technologies v. Lemelson Medical, Educ. & Research Foundations, 422 F.3d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
    • T 66/85 (1989)
    • T 82/93 (1996)
    • T 133/85 (1988)
    • T 170/87 (1989)
    • T 187/91 (1995)
    • T 194/84 (1990)
    • T 201/83 (1984)
    • T 246/86 (1989)
    • T 378/86 (1988)
    • T 514/88 (1990)
    • T 582/91 (1995)
    • T 583/93 (1997)
    • T 684/96 (2000)
    • Unilever PLC v. Chefaro Proprietaries Ltd. (1994)
    • Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
    • Vector Corporation v. Glatt Air Techniques Ltd. (2007)
Jurisprudence and Islamic Law
Volume 14, Issue 32
September 2023
Pages 97-129

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics