Overview of recent trends in patent regimes in United States, Japan and Europe Catalina Martinez Dominique Guellec OECD IPR, Innovation and Economic Performance 28 August 23 1 Growing number of patents USPTO grants (left axis) EPO applications (left axis) JPO applications (right axis) 18, 5, 16, 45, 14, 4, 12, 35, 3, 1, 25, 8, 2, 6, 15, 4, 1, 2, 5, 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 21 Note: USPTO grants sorted by grant year (198-22); EPO applications (including PCT) sorted by application year (198-21), only partial information available for 22. JPO applications by application year (1981-21). Source: JPO 22 annual report and OECD patent database, July 23. 2 What has determined this increase in patenting? Explaining factors may include surge in number of inventions; emergence of new technologies; changes in market structure; increasing importance of patent portfolios; strategic patenting and changes in patent regimes reflecting a pro-patent view among policy makers 3 1
Pro-patent view the growth in patent applications is a boon for America's economy, as well as contributing to our genius for innovation. (JAMES E. ROGAN, Director of USPTO, Hearings on Competition and Intellectual Property Law and Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy, February 6, 22) The government and industry must therefore consider intellectual property to be the source of industrial competitiveness and establish an intellectual property based strategy immediately. (METI, Task Force on Industrial Competitiveness and Intellectual Property Policy, 22) A Community patent is considered to be an essential tool if we are to succeed in transforming research results and the new technological and scientific knowhow into industrial and commercial success stories. (European Commission, COM 2, 412 Final, p.6) - March 23, common political approach reached. 4 Changes have been supported by The emergence of new IP governing bodies 1967, WIPO: PCT filing / SPLT negotiations 1977, EPO: centralised granting procedure / standard rules 1982, CAFC: specialised court 1994, WTO: enforcement power World-wide upward harmonisation 1994, minimum standards (TRIPS) 5 Main trends Most changes have gone in the direction of expanding and strengthening protection in the past two decades Expanding: Fields Breadth Incentives to file Strengthening: Patent Offices Courts 6 ] 2
Expanding coverage Extension of patent protection to new fields: Services (e.g. software and business methods) Closer to basic research (e.g. research tools in biotechnology) Increasing number of patents for publicly funded inventions 198 Bayh-Dole Act in the US and similar measures in other countries Broader scope of protection Broader forward protection in emerging fields (e.g. reach through claims in biotechnology) Extended application of the doctrine of equivalents 1988 multi-claim reform in Japan 7 USPTO grants also applied at EPO and JPO (All technology fields, sorted by USPTO grant date) 18, 16, 14, USPTO grants (ALL) USPTO grants (ALL) applied at EPO USPTO grants (ALL) applied at JPO USPTO grants (ALL) granted at EPO 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1982 1984 1986 1988 199 1992 1994 1996 1998 2 22 Note: Data on recent EPO grants is still partial. Source: OECD patent database, July 23. 8 Business Methods and Biotechnology (sorted by USPTO grant date) 1,2 1, 8 USPTO grants (BM) USPTO grants (BM) applied at EPO USPTO grants (BM) applied at JPO USPTO grants (BM) granted at EPO 7, 6, 5, USPTO grants (BIOTECH) USPTO grants (BIOTECH) applied at EPO USPTO grants (BIOTECH) applied at JPO USPTO grants (BIOTECH) granted at EPO 6 4, 3, 4 2, 2 1, 1982 1984 1986 1988 199 1992 1994 1996 1998 2 22 1982 1984 1986 1988 199 1992 1994 1996 1998 2 22 Note: Business method patents defined as those classified in USPC 75. Biotechnology patents following OECD definition based on IPC classes. Data on EPO grants is still partial. Source: OECD patent database, July 23. 9 3
Filing time / flexibility PCT option to patent Incentives to file Several paths in the national/regional phase: provisional (USPTO) / national office / EPO / Community Patent (under discussion) Filing cost Decreasing fees, especially internationally 5% fees for small entities since 1985 in the US (individual inventors, small businesses and non-profit organisations) Electronic filing Patentability requirements in emerging fields? Lack of databases of prior art (novelty / obviousness) Vague & broad claims (enablement / industrial application) 1998 US State Street Bank: useful, concrete and tangible result (BM) 21 US examination guidelines: specific, substantial and credible utility (genes) 1 Application fees US D, 1996 PRICES JPO USPTO EPO 4, 3,5 3, 2,5 2, 1,5 1, 5 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 21 GROWTH INDEX (base year: 1983) JPO USPTO EPO 6 5 4 3 2 1 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 21 Note: EPO standard application costs include designation fees for 8 states and search fees, in addition to filing fees. USPTO (large entities) and JPO comprise filing fees only. Source: JPO, USPTO and EPO. 11 EPO average grant rate v. EPO and USPTO grant rates for US priorities also applied at EPO (sorted by EPO application dates) 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% EPO grant rate (US priorities applied at EPO) 3% USPTO grant rate (US priorities applied at EPO) 2% EPO average grant rate 1% % 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 199 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Note: Grant rate is defined as number of grants divided by number of applications sorted by EPO application dates. Data on recent EPO grants is still partial. 12 Source: OECD patent database, July 23. 4
Reinforcing patent holders rights Lower uncertainty about validity of grants EPO centralised examination (inexistent in a number of EPC national offices) and post-grant opposition procedures. Japan 3 years limit to request examination (7 before 21) and post-grant opposition (pre-grant until 1996). Stronger rights in court Lower rates of invalidation in the US since creation of CAFC (1982) Higher damage awards in patent litigation (US, Japan) European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) and Community patent under discussion More stringent conditions for research exemptions? Madey v Duke University (US CAFC Oct. 22); not to be reviewed by US Supreme Court 13 Park s Index of Patent Strength (extent of coverage, international agreements, loss of rights, enforcement, duration) 5. 4.5 4. 3.5 3. 2.5 2. 1.5 EU Japan United States OECD 1..5. 196 1965 197 1975 198 1985 199 1995 2 Note: OECD and EU weighted average of country values of the index using GDP 2 PPP$. Source: OECD, based on data from Ginarte and Park (1997), Park (21, 22). 14 Conclusions Overall trend towards broader and stronger patent rights with some country differences. Are all these changes good for innovation and diffusion of technology? They have been implemented without much reference to their economic impacts. 15 5
6