Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 . Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, IRAN.

2 LL.M. in Intellectual Property, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Disclosure grace period” is a length of time in which the applicant can file patent or industrial design application after public disclosure of the subject-matter and without impairing the novelty requirement. To provide “grace period” in patent law, the legislature should consider four elements: duration of grace, type of disclosure, absolute or relative immunity of investor’s disclosure against third parties’ publications and priority right. This article discusses the mentioned elements and also pros and cons of grace period by analyzing Iranian law and through comparative studies. It is concluded that grace period is like a double-edged sword which means, on the one hand, that providing broad grace period along with strong shielding for inventor’s disclosure can promote academic inventors and SMEs, but on the other hand, this approach can be misused by strategic delay or disclosure. Additionally, interaction of priority right with grace period can be a barrier for technology transfer and attracting investors. Considering the status of Iran as a developing country, it is suggested that Iranian Legislature should increase grace period to 12 months, accept absolute immunity regarding patents and relative shield for designs and use the date of priority for the calculation of grace period in relevant cases.
 

Highlights

-

Keywords

 -  APO (Australian Patent Office). (2018). Manual of Practice and Procedure, available at: http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/ Patent_ Examiners_ Manual.htm
-  Arundel, Anthony. Barjak, Franz . Es-Sadki, Nordine. Hüsing, Tobias. Lilischkis,Stefan. Perrett, Pieter & Samuel, Olga. (2013). Respondent Report of the Knowledge Transfer Study, Empirica GmbH, Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz and UNU-MERIT for the European Commission, DG Research and Innovation, , available at: http://knowledge-transfer-study.eu/fileadmin/kts/documents/kts_respondent_report_2012_v1.1.pdf
-  Bagley, Margo  A. (2008). “The need for speed (and grace): Issues in a first-inventor-to-file world”, The Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol.23, no.1.
-  BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung), Zur Einführung der Neuheitsschonfristim, Patentrecht – ein USA Deutschand-Vergleich bezogen auf den Hochschulbereich, Bonn, 2000, Available at:  http://www.uni-saarland.de/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/Zur_Einfuehrung_der_Neuheitsschonfrist_im_Patentrecht_190607.pdf
-  Bodenhausen, Georg H. C.. (1968). Guide to the Application of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Geneva, Switzerland, BIRPI (United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property), available at: ftp://ftp.wipo.int/pub/library/ebooks/wipopublications/wipo_pub_ 611(e).pdf
-  Bouchoux, Deborah E., (2013). Intellectual Property The Law of Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents, and Trade Secrets ,Fourth Edition, New York, Cengage Learning.
-  Brickerhoff, Courtenay, "First-to-File Practice: An Alternative Interpretation of the Grace Period Shielding Disclosure Exception," Intelligence | Foley & Lardner LLP, accessed October 16, 2018, http://www.foley.com/first-to-file-practice-an-alternative-interpretation-of-the-grace-period-shielding-disclosure-exception-09-07-2012
-  CIPO (Canadian Intellectual Property Office). (2017). Manual of Patent Office Practice, available at:  https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/vwapj/rpbb-mopop-eng.pdf/$file/rpbb-mopop-eng.pdf
-  Eisenberg, Rebecca S., (2000). "The promise and perils of strategic publication to create prior art: a response to Professor Parchomovsky", Michigan Law Review, volume 98, no. 7.
-  Fromer, Jeanne C. (2008). "Patent disclosure", Iowa Law Review, vol. 94.
-  G 0003/98 (Six-month period/UNIVERSITY PATENTS), EPO, Enlarged Board of Appeal, 2000. Available at: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g980003ex1.html
-  Gregory, Jack. (2016). “Grace Period Literature ReviewIP Australia Economic Research Paper. available at: https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/sites/g/ files/net856/f/reports_publications/ip_aus_-_grace_period_literature_review.pdf
-  In re Katz  687 F.2d 450 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
-  Joachim, Jordan. (2015). “Is the AIA the end of grace? Examining the effect of the America Invents Act on the patent grace period”, New york University Law Review, vol.90.
-  JPO (Japan patent Office). (2011). The Japan Patent Office Annual Report 2011. available at: https://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/toushin_e/ kenkyukai_e/ annual_report2011.htm
-  JPO (Japan patent Office). (2016). Examination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model in Japan. available at: https://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki_e /t_tokkyo_e/files_guidelines_e/all_e.pdf
-  JPO (Japan patent Office). (2017). Examination Handbook for Patent and Utility Model in Japan. available at: https://www.jpo.go.jp/ tetuzuki_e/ t_tokkyo_e/files_handbook_sinsa_e/all_e.pdf
-  JPO (Japan patent Office). (March,  2015). Operational Guideline for Applicants to Seek the Application of Exception to Lack of Novelty of Invention. Corresponding to the Patent Act Article 30 Revised in 2011. available at: http://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki_e/t_tokkyo_e/pdf/e_pae_paa30/e_tebiki.pdf
-  KIPO (Korean Intellectual  Property office). (2007). Understanding the Patent Act of the Republic of Korea, Multilateral Affairs Division of KIPO. available at: http://www.kipo.go.kr/upload/en/download/Understanding_ the_Patent_Act_of_the_Republic_of_Korea.pdf
-  KIPO (Korean Intellectual  Property office). (2017). Patent examination Guidelines. available at: http://www.kipo.go.kr/upload/en/download/patent_ examination_guidelines_2018_01.pdf
-  Kravets, Leonid, "First-To-File Patent Law Is Imminent, But What Will It Mean?", TechCrunch, February 16, 2013, accessed October 16, 2018, https://techcrunch.com/2013/02/16/first-to-file-a-primer/
-  Metzler, Renee E., (2009). "Not All Grace Periods Are Created Equal: Building a Grace Period From the Ground Up", Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, vol. 13.
-  Parchomovsky, Gideon. (2000). "Publish or perish." Michigan Law Review 98, no. 4.
-  Robinson, Andrew Thomas. (2012). "The American Invents Act and the Best Mode Requirement: Where Do We Go From Here?", Journal of Intellectual Property Law, volume 20, no. 1.
-  Roucounas, Emmanuel. (2006). "The debate regarding the grace period in international patent law: a reminder", ALLEA Biennial Yearbook.
-  Straus, Joseph, Munich WIPO Open Forum on the DRAFT SPLT, Geneva: Grace Period—First Real Chance After Seventy Years, Mar. 3, 2006.
-  Struve, Frederik W. (2013). "Ending Unnecessary Novelty Destruction: Why Europe Should Adopt the Safety-net Grace Period as an International Best Practice", William Mitchell Law Review, volume 39.
-  T 0436/92 (Cutting tools/ACMC), EPO, The Board of Appeal, 1995. Available at: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/ t920436eu1.html
-  T 0585/92 (Deodorant detergent), EPO, The Board of Appeal, 1995. Available at: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/ t920585ex1.html
-  USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office). (2012). Examination Guidelines for Implementing the First-Inventor-to-File Provisions ofthe Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 Fed. Reg. 43,759. available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-07-26/pdf/2012-17898.pdf
-  USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office). (2018). Manual  of Patent Examining Procedure, Ninth Edition. available at: https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/current
-  Uview Ultraviolet Systems Inc. v. Brasscorp Ltd. 2009 FC 58, available at: https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/56406/index.do