نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکدۀ حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشکدۀ حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
ارزیابی و احراز گام ابتکاری که قلب نظام اختراعات محسوب می‌شود، همواره یکی از چالش‌های مهم در نظام‌های حقوقی مختلف دنیا بوده است. در برخی نظام‌های حقوقی همچون ایالات متحده، رویۀ قضایی به‌مرور زمان معیارهای گوناگونی را معرفی کرده است؛ برخی به عنوان معیارهای اصلی هستند و بعضی دیگر در دستۀ معیارهای ثانویه قرار می‌گیرند. اگرچه ارزیابی و احراز گام ابتکاری در بیشتر موارد براساس معیارهای اصلی انجام می‌شود، اما با پیچیده‌تر شدن اختراعات، معیارهای ثانویه اهمیت روزافزونی یافته‌اند. حقوق ایالات متحده آمریکا درمورد شناسایی معیارهای ثانویه پیشرو است. اما رویکرد حقوق ایران در این زمینه چندان روشن نیست. نظر به اهمیت موضوع از یک‌سو و سکوت قانونگذار ایرانی در قانون سال 1386 و قانون مصوب اخیر حمایت از مالکیت صنعتی سال 1403 ازسوی دیگر، همراه با فقدان رویۀ قضایی راهگشا، این تحقیق با هدف بررسی و تبیین معیارهای ثانویه رایج در نظام حقوقی ایالات متحده انجام شده است تا بسترهای نظری مناسب برای قضات ایرانی در ارزیابی گام ابتکاری فراهم گردد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
Secondary Considerations of the Inventive Step in Patents; A Study in the Light of United States Jurisprudence
نویسندگان [English]
- Mirghasem Jafarzadeh 1
- reza arabzadeh 2
1 1. Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 2. Corresponding Author, PhD Student of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
The assessment of the inventive step, a cornerstone of patent law, remains a complex challenge across legal systems. This study examines the role of secondary considerations in evaluating non-obviousness under U.S. jurisprudence, aiming to provide insights for improving Iran’s patent system. While primary considerations are central to initial patent examinations, secondary considerations play a critical role in litigation and validity challenges. The research highlights how U.S. courts have developed and applied these criteria to address ambiguities in patentability, particularly as technological advancements render traditional evaluations insufficient.
The inventive step requirement, codified in Iran’s 1386 Patents, Industrial Designs and Trademarks Law and the 1403 Industrial Property Protection Law, is similarly emphasized in global frameworks such as the U.S. (35 U.S.C. §103), the European Patent Convention (Article 56), and China’s Patent Law (Article 22). However, evolving technologies and incremental innovations complicate the assessment of non-obviousness. Iran’s legal system, lacking robust doctrinal guidance, faces administrative and judicial inconsistencies in applying this criterion. By analyzing U.S. jurisprudence—renowned for its rich case law—this study identifies actionable secondary considerations to enhance Iran’s patent evaluation framework.
Primary vs. Secondary Considerations
Primary considerations involve ex-ante assessments by patent offices, focusing on whether a hypothetical skilled Person would find the invention obvious. Secondary considerations, however, are ex post facto factors used in litigation to corroborate non-obviousness. Examples include:
U.S. courts began recognizing secondary considerations in the 19th century. Key cases include:
Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. (1876): The Supreme Court upheld a dental prosthesis patent, implicitly acknowledging commercial success as evidence of non-obviousness.
Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966): Established a four-factor test for obviousness, explicitly endorsing secondary considerations like commercial success and long-felt need.
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007): Clarified that the “obvious to try” standard does not negate non-obviousness if prior art lacks guidance for predictable success.
The AIPLA’s Model Patent Jury Instructions (2005) further systematized nine secondary factors, reinforcing their judicial acceptance.
The most important secondary considerations:
Obvious to Try Test
Under this criterion, courts assess whether foreseeable experiments lead to an invention. In other words, if the result of an experiment appears obvious, the applicant cannot claim a patent on the grounds that he has introduced a new product. In Pfizer v. Apotex (2007), the Federal Circuit upheld the validity of amlodipine besylate, noting that prior art did not suggest its superiority over alternatives. Conversely, in Pharmastem Therapeutics v. Viacell (2007), obviousness was affirmed despite unexpected success, as methods for stem cell preservation were deemed routine.
Teaching Away/Unexpected Success
This criterion means that innovations that conflict with the teachings of the prior art are considered non-obvious. United States v. Adams (1966) validated a battery design despite prior warnings against its components. Similarly, McGinley v. Franklin Sports (2001) upheld a baseball training device, as prior art discouraged its design approach.
Commercial Success
The success of a product or process in the marketplace can be seen as evidence of an inventive step. However, it is important to note that courts distinguish market success resulting from innovation from marketing skills. In Traitel Marble Co. v. Hungerford Brass (1927), the widespread adoption of a concrete-layering technique validated its inventiveness. However, Merck v. Teva (2005) rejected commercial success for an osteoporosis drug, attributing sales to regulatory exclusivity rather than novelty.
Failure of Others
Repeated unsuccessful attempts by competitors strengthen non-obviousness claims. Edison Electric Light Co. v. United States Electric Lighting Co. (1892) upheld Edison’s lightbulb patent, emphasizing years of failed experiments by rivals. Similarly, Wach v. Coe (1935) validated a maritime invention after global engineering failures.
Long-Felt Need
Persistent unmet industry demands signal non-obviousness. Rodman Chemical Co. v. Deeds (1919) upheld a carbonation method after decades of material waste in packaging. Kelley v. Coe (1938) validated a rock-drilling device, criticizing the Patent Office for underestimating the invention’s significance despite 30 years of industry demand.
Copying by others
Imitation by competitors, especially after failed independent efforts, indicates non-obviousness. Dow Chemical Co. v. American Cyanamid (1987) and Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment (1984) linked copying to the invention’s technical merit.
Challenges and Limitations
Secondary considerations are not standalone proofs but corroborative tools. Courts dismiss them if primary evidence overwhelmingly indicates obviousness. For instance, in Richardson-Vicks v. Upjohn (1997), combining ibuprofen and pseudoephedrine was deemed obvious despite commercial success, as prior art suggested such combinations. Similarly, SSP Agricultural Equipment v. Orchard-Rite (1979) rejected secondary factors where the invention’s obviousness was unequivocal.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Secondary considerations
- Inventive step
- Assessment of inventive step
- Invention
- Patent
)