Getting into the 'Spirit' of Innovative Things: Looking to Complementary and Substitute Properties to Shape Patent Protection for Improvements

K. Collins
{"title":"Getting into the 'Spirit' of Innovative Things: Looking to Complementary and Substitute Properties to Shape Patent Protection for Improvements","authors":"K. Collins","doi":"10.15779/Z38VQ48","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article both identifies and corrects a blind spot in the literature on optimal patent protection for improvements. Contemporary theories cannot explain why a set of easy cases - cases in which earlier inventors’ patent claims routinely do and should expand over time to encompass later-developed improvements - are easy cases. To explain these cases, patent theory must identify the inventions of earlier and later inventors in a different manner. Today, inventions are viewed simply as innovative things or sets of innovative things. This Article demonstrates that the locus of invention must be identified in a finer-grained manner: the inventions of the successive inventors in an improvement scenario must be identified as the particular properties of innovative things that make them innovative. Identifying innovative properties as the locus of invention has two principal benefits. First, it reduces the explanatory gap between the economic theory on patent protection for improvements and the uncontroversial reality of the contemporary patent regime. It reliably distinguishes the easy cases from the difficult ones, and it explains why the cases are either easy or difficult. Second, it allows the economic concepts of complements and substitutes to be brought to bear on the crafting of optimal claim scope - a task that these concepts have not previously been thought suitable to perform. The easy cases are cases in which the innovative properties of subsequent inventors are pure complements, and the difficult cases are cases in which the innovative properties of subsequent inventors are complement-substitute mixtures.","PeriodicalId":344149,"journal":{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38VQ48","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This Article both identifies and corrects a blind spot in the literature on optimal patent protection for improvements. Contemporary theories cannot explain why a set of easy cases - cases in which earlier inventors’ patent claims routinely do and should expand over time to encompass later-developed improvements - are easy cases. To explain these cases, patent theory must identify the inventions of earlier and later inventors in a different manner. Today, inventions are viewed simply as innovative things or sets of innovative things. This Article demonstrates that the locus of invention must be identified in a finer-grained manner: the inventions of the successive inventors in an improvement scenario must be identified as the particular properties of innovative things that make them innovative. Identifying innovative properties as the locus of invention has two principal benefits. First, it reduces the explanatory gap between the economic theory on patent protection for improvements and the uncontroversial reality of the contemporary patent regime. It reliably distinguishes the easy cases from the difficult ones, and it explains why the cases are either easy or difficult. Second, it allows the economic concepts of complements and substitutes to be brought to bear on the crafting of optimal claim scope - a task that these concepts have not previously been thought suitable to perform. The easy cases are cases in which the innovative properties of subsequent inventors are pure complements, and the difficult cases are cases in which the innovative properties of subsequent inventors are complement-substitute mixtures.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
进入创新事物的“精神”:寻求互补和替代属性以形成改进的专利保护
本文指出并纠正了文献中关于最佳专利保护的盲点。当代理论无法解释为什么一组简单的案例是简单的案例——早期发明者的专利要求通常会并且应该随着时间的推移而扩展,以包含后来开发的改进。为了解释这些案例,专利理论必须以不同的方式识别早期和后来的发明者的发明。今天,发明被简单地看作是创新的东西或一系列创新的东西。本文表明,必须以更细粒度的方式确定发明的轨迹:在改进场景中,连续发明人的发明必须被确定为创新事物的特定属性,使其具有创新性。将创新属性确定为发明所在地有两个主要好处。首先,它缩小了改进专利保护的经济理论与当代专利制度无可争议的现实之间的解释差距。它可靠地区分了容易的案例和困难的案例,并解释了为什么这些案例是容易的还是困难的。其次,它允许将互补和替代的经济概念引入到最佳权利要求范围的制定中-这些概念以前被认为不适合执行的任务。易案是后继发明人的创新特性是纯粹互补的情况,难案是后继发明人的创新特性是互补-替代混合的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Unbelievable: ERISA's Broken Promise [ver. 4.0; August 2021] The Information-Forcing Dilemma in Damages Law The Failure of Crits and Leftist Law Professors to Defend Progressive Causes Invisible Pension Investments Standards and Related Intellectual Property Issues for Climate Change Technology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1