Forfeiting IP

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 BUSINESS American Business Law Journal Pub Date : 2022-04-06 DOI:10.1111/ablj.12201
Deepa Varadarajan
{"title":"Forfeiting IP","authors":"Deepa Varadarajan","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Can IP rights be lost? That is, once IP rights are acquired, what—if anything—must owners do to keep those rights or risk forfeiting them. The answer varies widely across the IP landscape and has important consequences for follow-on innovation, competition, and the public domain. This article takes the first close look at forfeiture mechanisms throughout the five major IP regimes—utility patent, trade secret, copyright, design patent, and trademark. I demonstrate how IP forfeiture mechanisms (e.g., maintenance fees, monitoring obligations, and use requirements) have weakened or narrowed over time. Building on prior scholarship, I also delineate the important functions that IP forfeiture mechanisms serve. By forcing IP owners to decide if the cost and effort of maintaining IP rights are worthwhile, forfeiture mechanisms help eliminate low-value IP rights and enlarge the public domain, benefiting follow-on innovators and society at large. In addition, forfeiture mechanisms serve an important notice or signaling role by forcing owners to engage in acts that inform second comers about the existence and scope of IP rights. These functions are particularly important when it comes to functional or useful subject matter (e.g., innovations that make a product work). Given forfeiture's role and its problematic narrowing across the IP landscape, I suggest the need for reform—particularly in design patent and copyright law, two areas that increasingly cover functional subject matter but lack any forfeiture mechanism.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"59 1","pages":"175-226"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12201","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Can IP rights be lost? That is, once IP rights are acquired, what—if anything—must owners do to keep those rights or risk forfeiting them. The answer varies widely across the IP landscape and has important consequences for follow-on innovation, competition, and the public domain. This article takes the first close look at forfeiture mechanisms throughout the five major IP regimes—utility patent, trade secret, copyright, design patent, and trademark. I demonstrate how IP forfeiture mechanisms (e.g., maintenance fees, monitoring obligations, and use requirements) have weakened or narrowed over time. Building on prior scholarship, I also delineate the important functions that IP forfeiture mechanisms serve. By forcing IP owners to decide if the cost and effort of maintaining IP rights are worthwhile, forfeiture mechanisms help eliminate low-value IP rights and enlarge the public domain, benefiting follow-on innovators and society at large. In addition, forfeiture mechanisms serve an important notice or signaling role by forcing owners to engage in acts that inform second comers about the existence and scope of IP rights. These functions are particularly important when it comes to functional or useful subject matter (e.g., innovations that make a product work). Given forfeiture's role and its problematic narrowing across the IP landscape, I suggest the need for reform—particularly in design patent and copyright law, two areas that increasingly cover functional subject matter but lack any forfeiture mechanism.

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
没收知识产权
知识产权会丢失吗?也就是说,一旦获得了知识产权,所有者必须做些什么来保留这些权利,否则就有被没收的风险。答案在知识产权领域差异很大,对后续创新、竞争和公共领域都有重要影响。本文首先仔细研究了五大知识产权制度中的没收机制——实用新型专利、商业秘密、版权、外观设计专利和商标。我展示了知识产权没收机制(如维护费、监控义务和使用要求)是如何随着时间的推移而减弱或缩小的。在先前学术研究的基础上,我还阐述了知识产权没收机制的重要职能。通过迫使知识产权所有者决定维护知识产权的成本和努力是否值得,没收机制有助于消除低价值的知识产权并扩大公共领域,使后续创新者和整个社会受益。此外,没收机制通过强迫所有人从事告知第二者知识产权的存在和范围的行为,发挥了重要的通知或信号作用。当涉及到功能或有用的主题(例如,使产品发挥作用的创新)时,这些功能尤其重要。鉴于没收的作用及其在知识产权领域的问题,我认为有必要进行改革,特别是在外观设计专利和版权法方面,这两个领域越来越多地涉及功能性主题,但缺乏任何没收机制。
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Rebooting the Community Reinvestment Act High-status versus low-status stakeholders Innovation stakeholders: Developing a sustainable paradigm to integrate intellectual property and corporate social responsibility Issue Information
×
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