| 查看: 1169 | 回复: 14 | ||
| 【奖励】 本帖被评价9次，作者xiaohezi7844增加金币 8 个 | ||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | ||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | ||
[资源]
汤姆森科技信息集团发布《2008 Patent Focus Report》 报告
|
||
|
汤姆森科技信息集团发布《2008 Patent Focus Report》 报告 2008年02月21日 汤姆森公司 (The Thomson Corporation) (NYSE: TOC; TSX: TOC) 旗下子公司、为全球科研与商界提供信息解决方案的领先供应商汤姆森科技信息集团 (Thomson Scientific) 发布了其《2008 Patent Focus Report》（2008专利聚焦报告）。该报告由《Intellectual Asset Management》杂志编辑 Joff Wild 撰写，发布于汤姆森科技信息集团的 KnowledgeLink(SM) 电子通讯上。该报告对全球各主要专利权威机构（美国、欧洲、日本、中国和印度）最近的活动进行了调查。该报告可通过登陆 scientific.thomson.com/newsletter 免费获取。 汤姆森科技信息集团的《2008 Patent Focus Report》的重要成果包括： -- 专利活动：2007年是创纪录的一年，专利申请的数量不断增多。中国的专利申请数量达到了一个重要里程碑，在2007年12月突破了400万项。美国专利商标局 (USPatent and Trademark Office) 审核的专利申请数也达到了创纪录的362,227项。在欧洲和印度专利局收到更多专利申请的同时，日本的专利申请数却下降了4.3%。 -- 资源：在专利活动整体增长的环境下，该报告重点突出了全球大部分专利权威机构对更多资源的需求。作为专利领域的新生力量，印度受到了最大挑战，该国只有不到200个专利审核员来处理不断增长的申请。 -- 立法和规则的变化：中国的新法规允许科学家、机构和大学拥有任何一项源自其研究的专利，这一规定正在掀起新一轮的专利申请热潮。与此同时，在欧洲，专利规章的变化通过取消申请过程中的翻译要求而简化了专利申请程序，而在美国，这些变化则因为涉嫌使专利诉讼变得更难和更昂贵而使专利律师感到恼火。 除了包含对全球五大专利局的现状报告，该报告还对重大的专利纠纷及其结果进行了分析。 最为最近重新推出的定制化 KnowledgeLink 电子通讯内容的一部分，《2008 Patent Focus Report》利用了汤姆森科技信息集团专业人士和客座作者的专长，为信息专业人士、科学研究人员和知识产权专家提供了有关信息管理和尖端研究趋势的独特观点。KnowledgeLink 每两个月向订户发送一次，这些用户可免费注册并在 scientific.thomson.com/newsletter 上选择他们定制的内容。 汤姆森科技信息集团营销部副总裁 Marisa Westcott表示：“《2008 Patent Focus Report》提供了一个强大的引人深思的社论内容集合以及来自我们信息专业人士的专业观点。重新推出我们的 KnowledgeLink 电子通讯为我们提供了一个聚焦我们专业分析师和思想领袖的机会，正是他们推动了汤姆森科技信息集团的产品开发和创新。” [ Last edited by shich68 on 2008-5-23 at 14:39 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
一志愿北京协和药学专硕310 本科哈尔滨医科大学求调剂
已经有0人回复
-
[求助] 流式死活染 & 单细胞门控设置被质疑，如何优化并解释？
已经有1人回复
-
药物学论文润色/翻译怎么收费?
已经有129人回复
-
蛋白稳定性实验与功能实验不一致
已经有11人回复
-
第4年了，马上40了，可能我与国基确实无缘吧。。。
已经有12人回复
-
2026年申博药学专业
已经有1人回复
-
药学专硕申博
已经有3人回复
9楼2008-04-20 16:25:52
|
THOMSON SCIENTIFIC PATENT FOCUS REPORT 2008 Joff Wild Editor, Intellectual Asset Magazine January 2008 Worldwide patent activities are at an all time high and still increasing, but are the major patent authorities coping? This report reviews key statistics and developments from 2007 for patents and patent owners in China, Europe, India, Japan and the United States. CHINA In December 2007, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) — China's patent and trademark registry — reached a significant milestone when it received its four millionth patent application since the country's first patent law was implemented back in 1985. It took 15 years to get to the first million, but only one and a half years to get to the fourth million. However, given current application rates at SIPO, none of this can come as much of a surprise. During 2007, SIPO received 694,153 patent applications covering three types of patent: invention, utility and design. This number may at first sight seem huge, but it does not tell the full story. The overwhelming number of applications — almost 450,000 — was for utility and design patents, which are not subject to substantive examination. Only invention patents receive full scrutiny and there were 245,161 of these submitted during 2007. What is interesting to note, however, is the increasing proportion of invention patent applications coming from within China. In 2006, they represented just over 58 per cent of the total number of applications to SIPO, in 2007 this increased to almost 63 per cent. This increase was despite an increasing number of applications from abroad: 92,107 compared to 88,172 in 2006. If you look at the numbers of granted patents in 2007: 53 per cent (36,003) went to foreign applicants, and 47 per cent (31,945) went to local entities. This may reflect the fact that until recently fewer Chinese companies had applied for invention patents. In future years, we will see those percentages reversing. A move that may spur this growth in applications occurred at the end of December 2007 when the standing committee of the National People's Congress amended China 's science and technology laws. The new rules allow scientists, institutions and universities to own any patents resulting from their publicly-funded research, making China the latest of many countries to introduce a Bayh-Dole style IP regime. In the courts, the long-running dispute over Pfizer's best-selling drug Viagra was finally settled. The Beijing People's High Court upheld a decision by the Beijing Intermediate Court to overturn a SIPO decision that disallowed the Viagra patent on the basis of insufficient disclosure. The Viagra dispute has been closely followed by companies across the world. It has been seen as a touchstone case — especially as it involved asking the Chinese courts to overrule a decision reached by an official state body. While it may have surprised some that Pfizer succeeded in the litigation, a study of reported decisions in IP cases during 2007 suggested that if rights owners appear before the Chinese courts they have a 75 per cent chance of having the eventual decision go in their favour. This is the case whether the plaintiff is Chinese or from abroad. During 2006, there were more patent cases filed in China than in any other country, and while 98 per cent of these involved only Chinese companies, in the two per cent featuring a plaintiff from outside the country, the foreign entity ended up victorious 90 per cent of the time. But not everyone is a winner. In September 2007, French company Schneider Electric was found to have violated five patents owned by Chint Group by the Intermediate People's Court in Wenzhou city — Chint's home town. The court ordered that Schneider stop the manufacture of a range of miniature circuit breakers and told it to pay close to USD 45 million to the Chinese company, based on profits Schneider had made from sales between 2004 and 2006. This was by far the biggest award ever made in a Chinese patent case. Schneider has stated that it will appeal. EUROPE The European Patent Office (EPO) annual report for 2006, issued in June 2007, showed that both applications to the office, and grants made by it, were higher than in 2005, at 207,300 and 62,780 respectively. Although there was a five per cent rise in applications, the number of grants increased by 17.9 per cent. The United States, Germany and Japan continue to be the countries from where most applications come, and these three countries also get more grants than any others. One notable statistic is that the proportion of filings coming from the members of the European Patent Organization fell by a percentage point to 48.5 per cent. France and the Netherlands respectively follow Germany to make up the top three European countries from where applications are submitted. The release of the 2006 report came just weeks before the retirement of Alain Pompidou as President of the EPO. He was succeeded on 1 July 2007 by Alison Brimelow, who will hold the post until 2010. Perhaps Pompidou's most lasting legacy will be the Scenarios For the Future project, a major initiative which involved looking at four possible ways in which the world will develop by 2020, and the implications that each will have for the EPO and the global patent system in general. The Scenarios project has been widely praised and has already begun to have an impact on policy at the EPO. Since taking over at the EPO, Brimelow has indicated that her major priorities will be to deal with two billion-worth of liabilities that have emerged at the office since it adopted International Financial Reporting Standards, and what she describes as "the health of the patent system". Brimelow has said that she believes that an era in which it was relatively inexpensive to obtain a patent is coming to an end. A combination of too many abandoned applications and lowering renewal rates, with increasing backlogs and heightened concerns about quality, mean that those seeking patent protection may have to pay more to obtain it. One example suggested by Brimelow is for applicants to pay fees that reflect the actual cost of the EPO doing a search and issuing a preliminary opinion. Perhaps not coincidentally, the EPO announced significant fee increases at the end of 2007 for, among other things, renewals and applications containing more than 16 claims. Also at the end of 2007, the EPC 2000 — the revised version of the European Patent Convention — came into force. Although it has little effect on substantive patent law in Europe, EPC 2000 will have a significant impact on procedure, including the elimination of the need for translations during the application stage, and the elimination of the need to file drawings, claims and a description to obtain a filing date for a European patent (instead applicants can refer to previously submitted material in other countries). Of great significance is that communications between European patent attorneys and their clients will now be subject to privilege. Previously this had not been automatically the case and was instead a case for national jurisdiction. Away from the EPO, the French Assembly sanctioned French ratification of the London Agreement on Translations in October 2007. This is now expected to come into force during mid 2008 and will mean that translation costs for patent owners will be far less onerous than before. In fact, there were a number of indications during 2007 that patents were moving up the political agenda in Europe. While any hope for the creation of a single European patent jurisdiction seemed dead in the water at the end of 2006, there is now some momentum behind talks among EU member states to explore whether such an idea is feasible. While there is no imminent sign of a breakthrough, both Slovenia and France — the two countries that hold the EU presidency during 2008 — have stated that maintaining progress is a priority. Some are predicting a major announcement may be made in the latter half of 2008. INDIA India's patent regime changed on 1 January 2005, in compliance with Indian obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization. These amendments to the country's Patent Act allowed, for the first time, product patents to be registered. Since that time there has been a boom in the number of patent applications being submitted to the Indian Patent Office, so that during 2007 the number came close to 30,000 — a rise of over 30 per cent on the previous year's figure. The patent office is struggling to cope as applications rise. Despite the increased workload, the four offices that handle examinations — Kolkata, Delhi , Mumbai and Chennai — have under 200 examiners in total. Recruitment has proved difficult and the attrition rate is high: the Mumbai Mirror reported in August 2007 that one-fifth of staff had left their posts in the previous two years. This is one of the reasons why applicants wait an average of two years before the examination process begins. However, there does seem to have been a surge in the number of patents being granted, if recent reports are correct. During the Indian patent office's current fiscal year, which finishes at the end of March 2008, over 10,000 awards have so far been made. This figure is significantly higher than the 7,500 granted for the whole of 2006/07 and the 4,320 granted during 2004/05. Of course, it also begs the question of just how much scrutiny these patents have received given the low numbers of examiners currently employed. Perhaps worrying for the Indian government is the fact that of the applications being submitted: about 80 per cent are from foreign entities, despite India's growing reputation as a centre for high-tech and life sciences innovation. Interestingly, the number of patent applications at the USPTO that have their roots in the sub-continent is growing significantly, as the investments that non-Indian companies have made in developing R&D facilities in the country begin to bear fruit. Without question, the most high profile patent-related issue in India over the last couple of years has involved Glivec, the anti-cancer drug developed and manufactured by Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis. At the beginning of 2006, following a pre-grant opposition proceeding, the Indian patent office rejected Novartis's application to patent Glivec under the provisions of Section 3 (d) of the Patent Act. This states that 'the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance, or the mere discovery of any new Property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant,' is not patentable. Novartis claimed that in placing additional requirements for patentability beyond novelty, commercial applicability and non-obviousness, India's Patent Law is not TRIPs-compliant. Novartis took its case to the Madras High Court and, at the same time, asked the court to overturn the office's original decision. |
2楼2008-04-09 06:42:49
|
The Indian government had also convened a committee, headed by the widely respected academic RA Mashelkar, to assess whether there were problems with the Patent Act as it related to pharmaceutical products. In December 2006, the committee reported back that certain provisions were not TRIPs-compliant. However, in February 2007, the report was withdrawn amid accusations of plagiarism. In August 2007, the Madras High Court ruled that the Section 3 (d) was TRIPs-compatible. Although Novartis could have appealed this decision to the Indian Supreme Court, the company declined to do so. Prior to this judgment, the court had already referred Novartis's appeal against the original patent office decision to the newly created Intellectual Property Appellate Board. This has yet to issue a ruling in the case, although one of the individuals originally scheduled to sit on the panel — S Chandrasekharan — has been removed after Novartis objected on the grounds that he was the Controller of the patent office at the time the original rejection was made. JAPAN The Japan Patent Office (JPO) annual report, issued in November 2007, showed that the number of patent applications in 2006 decreased by 4.3 per cent to 408,674. In its commentary on these figures, the JPO explained that one of the main reasons for the fall was the increasing emphasis that Japanese companies place on keeping their inventions confidential, to help prevent technology leakage. The number of requests for examination at the JPO also showed a slight downward trend in 2006. In 2005, it was 396,933 (up 21 per cent on 2004), but this fell by four per cent to 382,116 in 2006. This is still a huge number, which can be explained by changes to Japanese patent law in 2001: these stated that requests for examination of applications submitted after October 1 that year had to be made within three years, rather than seven (under the previous law). This change left a number of active applications that were not covered by the new rules and which are now working their way through the system alongside all the applications submitted under the new three year time limit. The office expects the number of requests to peak within the next two years and then to drop. The rise in the number of applications and examinations requests over the last few years has put staff at the JPO under increasing pressure, especially as the average number of claims in each patent application has also increased to 9.5. The result is that first action pendency rates currently stand at 27 months and are expected to rise slightly for 2007 and 2008. After that time the aim is to achieve a significant cut in waiting times so that they fall to an average of 11 months by 2013. The JPO hopes to meet this ambitious target by tactics that include recruiting more examiners and outsourcing prior art searches. The JPO now employs just over 1,560 patent examiners, having recruited almost 100 more — most of them on fixed term contracts — during 2006. This number, however, remains significantly lower than at the USPTO and EPO; according to the JPO's own calculations their patent examiners handle an average of 199 applications per year, compared to 78 for USPTO examiners and 45 for EPO examiners. JPO approval rates are declining: 129,071 patents were granted during 2006, representing 48.5 per cent of applications examined; in 2002, the rate stood at 51.9 per cent. Worrying news for successful applicants looking for certainty post-grant is that, according to research released in April 2007, Japanese courts find against patentees in 90 per cent of the cases that they hear. Speaking at the 15th Fordham Conference on International Intellectual Property Law & Policy, Mr Eiji Katayama told delegates that he had found that of the 37 final trial decisions issued by the Tokyo and Osaka district courts during 2006, 33 had ended with a finding of non-infringement. Of these, two-thirds were decided on the basis of invalidity, while over 85 per cent of the invalidity findings related to the lack of an inventive step or obviousness. That said, other Japanese speakers at the conference pointed out that many of these cases concerned patents issued by the JPO when there was a much lower standard of patentability than there is now; while others observed that in cases going to appeal, patents are affirmed 80 per cent of the time. UNITED STATES The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) report on the fiscal year 2007 (which ended on 30 September 2007) was a document not lacking in optimism. Among the highlights it chronicled were that the office examined 362,227 patent applications between 1 October 2006 and the end of September 2007: the highest number ever. At 96.5 per cent, quality compliance equalled the previous year's achievements, which were themselves the best in 25 years; while patent examiner decisions were upheld by the patent appeals board 69 per cent of the time, compared to 51 per cent in 2005. Perhaps most noteworthy was that while in 2000, a record high of 72 per cent of all patent applications were granted by the office, that figure has now fallen to 51 per cent, which gives the USPTO comparable approval rates to both the JPO and the EPO. Anyone reading the 2007 fiscal year report would be forgiven for thinking that while times were challenging everything in the USPTO's garden was basically rosy. However, the reality is that this is not the case. In fact, the office's Director, Jon Dudas, is probably under as much pressure as any of his predecessors has ever been, with questions being asked about the quality of the patents being granted in the US , and about the relationship he and senior office officials have with the US patent bar. While there has often been a simmering level of mistrust among US patent attorneys towards the USPTO — after all, its decisions have a material affect on livelihoods and reputations — the current situation is very rare, if not unprecedented. Practitioners have been up in arms about a series of actual and anticipated rules changes which, they claim, will make it much harder and more expensive to prosecute patents effectively and will leave them even more open to accusations of inequitable conduct. Two issues in particular have proved highly controversial: a new claims and continuations regime, and changes to information disclosure statement (IDS) rules. Although there was consultation on both, many attorneys claim that their concerns were completely ignored by a USPTO fixed on reducing backlogs and cutting pendency times, whatever the practical consequences. For its part, the USPTO states that it has a responsibility to do what is best for the US patent system, regardless of whether this may upset private practitioners and some applicants. Matters came to a head at the end of October when, just one day before the new claims and continuations regime was due to come into force, a court in Virginia upheld a GlaxoSmithKline request to enjoin their introduction on the basis that the USPTO had exceeded its remit. The USPTO, however, is not backing down and will put its case in a full hearing which will take place this year. The IDS rules, meanwhile, are slated for introduction in early 2008. The Supreme Court was also actively involved in patenting during 2007, issuing two major decisions and taking on a case that will enable it to explore the limits of patent exhaustion. The two cases in which judgment was made were: * MedImmune v Genentech (January): broadly speaking the judgement makes it easier for licensees to challenge the validity of the patents they have licensed * KSR v Teleflex (May): this will have a yet-to-be-fully-understood effect on the level of non-obviousness necessary in order for an invention to be granted a patent - although most commentators believe that the bar has been raised somewhat, no-one quite knows by how much. The exhaustion case is LG v Quanta and is due to be decided by the middle of 2008. Finally, the proposed Patent Reform Act continued to make its way through Congress. Although, a version of the legislation was approved by the House of Representatives, progress stalled in the Senate, so it is not yet certain that the first major rewriting of US patent legislation for over 50 years will actually occur. We will all know this time next year. Joff Wild is editor of IAM magazine and writes a regular blog on its website. pdf下载： http://scientific.thomson.com/ts ... focusreport2008.pdf 2007年版： http://scientific.thomson.com/me ... tentfocusreport.pdf |
3楼2008-04-09 06:43:10
|
美国汤姆森科技集团公布《2008年专利重点报告》 世界专利活动正呈现出前所未有的活跃，且这一态势仍在持续。2008年1月末，汤姆森科技集团公布其《2008年专利重点报告》1，对2007年中国、欧洲、印度、日本和美国的专利及专利持有人的关键统计数据和专利活动发展予以回顾。 一、中国 1 、专利申请量突破400万件 2007年12月，中国国家知识产权局(SIPO)受理的专利申请总量突破400万件，实现了一个重要的里程碑。中国自1985年实施《专利法》以来，专利申请总量历时15年达到第一个100万件，而此次超越第四个100万件仅耗时18个月。但按当前SIPO受理申请的增长率计算，这一突破并不为奇。 2007年，SIPO共受理发明、实用新型和外观设计三类专利申请694,153件。这一数字乍看非常庞大，但并不能说明全部的事实。实际上，其中约450,000件，即绝大部分的专利申请为不需进行实质审查的实用新型和外观设计申请。而需进行实质审查的发明专利申请量仅为245,161件。 2、国内发明专利申请比例提升 值得注意的是，中国国内发明专利申请比例正在逐步升高。2006年，国内发明专利申请占总量58%，2007年这一比例升至近63%。而与此同时，SIPO受理的国外发明专利申请却由2006年的88,172件增至92,107件。 2007年获SIPO授权的专利申请中53% (36,003件)由国外申请人获得，47%(31,945件)为国内申请。这或许可反映出这样一个事实，即直至今日，仅有少数的中国企业申请了发明专利。今后我们将会看到这一比例出现逆转。 随着中国人大常委会于2007年12月末修订通过《中华人民共和国科学技术进步法》(简称《科技进步法》)，中国的专利申请增长或许会因此受到鞭策。修订后的法规允许科学家、机构和大学拥有受到公共资金资助研究取得的任何专利成果，从而使中国成为最新引入《拜杜法案》知识产权体制的国家。 3、万艾可(Viagra)案最终得以裁决 在专利案件审理方面，长期未决的辉瑞(Pfizer)公司畅销药品万艾可案终得以解决。北京市高级人民法院维持了北京市中级人民法院作出的推翻 SIPO以公开不充分为由拒绝接受万艾可专利的一审决定。万艾可案一直受到世界各国企业的密切关注，尤其是该案涉及要求中国法院推翻其官方机构所作出的决定，因此更被外界视为是“试金石”案件。 当外界对辉瑞公司上诉取得成功深感意外之际，一份有关2007年知识产权案件决定的研究报告显示，如果专利权持有人上诉到中国法院，不论原告方来自中国境内或国外，那么其即拥有75%的胜算机会。2006年，中国法院受理的专利案件数量位居其他国家之前，其中98%的案件原被告双方均为中国企业，另2%的原告方为国外企业，而外国企业的胜诉率则为90%。 但并非每个人都是赢家。2007年9月，中国温州中级人民法院判决法国施耐德(Schneider)电子公司侵犯正泰集团(Chint)的5件专利。法院勒令施耐德停止生产微型断路器系列产品，并根据该公司在2004-2006年间的销售额向正泰支付4,500万美元的赔偿金。这一赔偿额度远远超出其他中国专利案件被罚金额，施耐德公司已声称要对此提出上诉。 二、欧洲 1、专利申请和授权量增加 欧洲专利局(EPO)于2007年6月公布的《2006年度报告》显示，EPO 2006年受理和授权的成员国及其他国家的专利申请均高出2005年，分别为207,300件和62,780件。尽管专利申请量仅增长了5%，但授权量却上升了17.9%。美国、德国、日本仍然是其专利申请的主要来源国，且专利授权量亦多于其他国家。需注意的是，欧洲专利组织成员国的专利申请量比例下降1 个百分点至48.5%。在向EPO提交专利申请的欧洲国家中，德国、法国和荷兰依次位居前列。 2、EPO大幅提高专利申请费用 布赖姆洛女士自任EPO局长时就表示，她的首要任务是处理EPO自采用《国际财务报告标准》以来出现的总值20亿(欧元)3的债务问题，并称此举事关“专利体制的健康”。布赖姆洛认为，以相对低廉的费用获得专利的时代正在结束。大量废弃专利申请、续展率的降低、不断增加的待审积压以及备受关注的专利授权质量问题，都意味着或许需要支付更多费用以寻求获得专利保护。布赖姆洛举例称，申请人应支付能够如实反映EPO进行检索和出具初步审查意见的真实成本的费用。或许并非偶然，EPO于2007年底宣布大幅提高专利申请审批费用，其中包括续展费(年费)和多于16项权利要求的专利申请费用。 3、《欧洲专利公约2000》生效及《伦敦协议》施行指日可待 2007年12月末，《欧洲专利公约2000》正式生效。尽管《欧洲专利公约2000》对欧洲的实体专利法影响甚微，但由于其取消专利申请在申请阶段的翻译要求以及简化欧洲专利申请日的获取要求，即在初期可暂不提交附图、权利要求和说明书，但须在 EPO指定期限内补交，因此将对欧洲专利的审批程序产生巨大影响。而其最显著的意义则在于对欧洲专利代理人与委托人间的沟通予以了特权。允许专利权人自愿对其专利保护范围予以限制，以灵活应对侵权诉讼或其它法律纷争。 2007年10月，法国民议会经审议同意法国批准《伦敦协议》。至此，《伦敦协议》得以正式施行的最后一道障碍扫清，并将于2008年上半年正式生效4，由此意味着欧洲专利组织成员国专利持有人的专利申请翻译费用将大幅降低。 4、专利问题正上升到欧洲政治议程 事实上，大量迹象表明在2007年专利问题正逐步上升到欧洲的政治议程上来。在组建单一欧洲专利司法体系的希望于2006年冬似已破灭之际，欧盟成员国目前研究该理念是否可行的私下讨论又有抬头之势。虽然眼下并无破冰迹象，但2008年欧盟轮值国斯洛文尼亚和法国都表示将把推动该进程置于日程优先位置。更有人预测，2008年下半年将会出台一项重要的声明。 三、印度 1、专利申请量激增 为履行作为世界贸易组织成员国的义务，印度专利制度于2005年1月1日发生变化。印度《专利法》予以了修订，食品、药品、农用化学品产品专利首次得以登记注册。自此，印度专利局受理的专利申请量一直处于激增态势，2007年增至近30,000件，较上年增长30%。 或许最令印度政府担忧的是专利申请来源：尽管印度已赢得了日趋成为高科技和生命科学创新中心的声誉，但近80%的专利申请仍来自国外。耐人寻味的是，由于非印度公司在印度对研发机构的投资开始初见成效，USPTO受理的来源于印度的专利申请量却日渐猛增。 2、专利待审积压 印度专利局目前正在努力应对专利申请激增问题。尽管工作量不断增加，但负责审批专利申请的加尔各答、德里、孟买和钦奈各局的审查员人数却不足 200人。一方面招聘工作获批困难重重，另一方面人员损耗率居高不下。据《孟买镜报》2007年8月公布的一份报告显示，印度专利局五分之一的员工在前两年间辞职。这亦是造成申请人在专利审批程序启动之前平均要等待两年时间的原因之一。根据印度专利局最近公布的报告，印度专利待授权量出现猛增。在印度专利局于2008年3月结束的财年中，迄今有逾10,000件专利获授权。这一数字远远超出2006和2004年的7,500件和4,320件。不过，该报告对新近招聘的数量甚少的审查员如何对受理的申请进行缜密审查这一实质性问题予以了回避。 3、格列卫(Glivec)专利事件备受关注 毫无疑问，印度多年来备受外界关注的专利事件莫过于由瑞士诺华(Novartis)公司研制生产的抗癌药物格列卫的可专利性。2006年初，印度专利局根据《专利法》第3条款拒绝了诺华公司提交的格列卫药品专利申请。该款规定：不会引发已知物质功效增强的已知物质新构造的简单发现或对已知物质新用途、新特性的简单发现不具有可专利性。诺华则声称印度《专利法》对新颖性、工业实用性和非显而易见性可专利性标准附加要求的作法与TRIPs协议相悖。诺华随即向马德拉斯高法提出控诉，并同时请求法院推翻专利局的驳回决定。 对此，印度政府临时组建了由业内享有盛誉的Mashelkar负责的一个委员会，评估《专利法》中有关制药产品的规定是否存在问题。2006年12月，该委员会出具报告称专利法中某些规定与TRIPs协议不相符。但是，2007年2月，该报告却因剽窃指控而被撤。 2007年8月，马德拉斯高法认定《专利法》第3条款与TRIPs协议原则相一致。尽管诺华有权就这一决定向印度高法提出上诉，但其选择了放弃。在该裁决之前，法院已将案件涉及反对专利局作出的格列卫药品不具专利性决定的部分移交新成立的知识产权上诉委员会(IPA处理。在诺华因入选 IPAB的钱德拉塞克兰在该专利申请被驳回时曾任印度专利局局长表示不满后，钱德拉塞克兰已退出IPAB，但目前法院仍未对该案作出审理结果。 四、日本 1、专利申请和实审请求量高居不下 日本专利局(JPO)于2007年11月公布的年报显示，2006年JPO受理的专利申请量为408,674件，较上年降低4.3%。JPO称造成申请量下降的一个主要原因是日本企业为防止技术泄露而将其发明据为秘密的趋势日益加重。 JPO 2005年受理的实审请求量为396,933件(较2004年上升21%)，2006年下降4%为382,116件。尽管JPO 2006年受理的实审请求略有下降，但依然是一个非常庞大的数字，这归因于日本《专利法》于2001年的修订。2001年10月1日施行的新修订《专利法》将实审请求期由7年缩短为3年。JPO预测实审请求量将在未来2年内出现高峰，随后逐渐回落。 2、缩短一通周期计划 随着专利申请量和实审请求量的增加，JPO审查员的工作压力也随之加重，而平均每件专利申请的权利要求增至9.5项则令本已沉重的工作负荷雪上加霜。目前JPO的一通周期为27个月，但在JPO公布大幅降低一通周期的计划后，这一时间有望在2013年降至11个月。JPO希望通过借助包括新招审查员和外包现有技术检索等策略实现这一雄心勃勃的目标。 日前JPO共有1,560余名审查员，2006年新增逾100名审查员，其中绝大部分为长期签约人员，这一数字仍远远落后于USPTO和 EPO。据JPO计算，其每名审查员年均审查199件申请，而USPTO和EPO分别为78和45件。2006年JPO授权129,071件专利，占审查总量的48.5%，较上年有所下降。2002年时这一比例曾达到51.9%。 3、专利授权后的确定性令专利持有人担忧 根据2007年4月公布的一份报告显示，令寻求授权后确定性的专利申请人担忧的是，日本法院在其受理的90%的专利案件中，都作出了不利于专利持有人的裁决。在第15届Fordham国际知识产权法律和政策年会上，日方代表Eiji Katayama称，在东京和大阪地方法院2006年作出的37项结案决定中，共有33项以未侵权告终，而其中又有三分之二以专利权无效为由，且85%的无效都与缺乏创新性或具有显而易见性有关。另有日方代表则指出，上述案件所涉的JPO授权专利都是在以前专利标准较低的情况下作出的。但亦有人称，目前遭到上诉的80%授权专利的专利权都受到法院的肯定。 五、美国 1、授权专利质检合格率创25年之最 美国专利商标局(USPTO)《2007财年绩效和责任报告》(至2007年9月30日为止)字里行间中不乏乐观情绪。而其着重突出的是该局在 2006年10月1日至2007年9月间共审查362,227件专利申请，这一数字超过以往任何时候。授权专利的质检合格率达96.5%，与上年持平，为近25年来最高水平。与此同时，专利上诉委员会对专利审查员审查决定的支持率由2005年的51%上升到69%。或许最为值得注意的是，USPTO在 2000年时曾创下了72%的授权率，但在2006年降至51%，与JPO和EPO具有一定的可比性。 2、专利代理人与USPTO矛盾重重 翻阅过《2007财年绩效和责任报告》的人员或许都会认为，USPTO所遇到的任何挑战的前景都是较为乐观的。然而事实却并非如此。实际上，由于深受外界对美国授权专利质量以及USPTO高层与美国专利代理人关系的质疑，USPTO局长杜达斯承受的压力毫不逊于任何一位前任。 美国专利代理人对USPTO的不信任感积蕴已久，当前的矛盾情形可谓前所未有。知识产权从业者们竭力反对一系列现行和预期的法规更动，声称此举会令专利诉讼更加困难、费用更加高昂，并置其于遭受更多不公正行为指控的境地。新的权利要求和继续申请制度以及信息披露声明(IDS)法规的修订更是备受争议。尽管上述两项措施都征求了公众意见，但多数代理人仍声称USPTO仅将关注点锁定在减轻工作量和缩短审查周期上，完全无视他们的利益以及由此所产生的实际后果。USPTO则对此声明，他们有责任做最有利于美国专利制度的事情，无论其是否会挫伤私人从业者和一些申请人的利益。 2007年10月，双方间的分歧更是达至顶点，在“专利权利要求和继续申请最终规定”即将生效的前一天，弗吉尼亚联邦地方法院作出了支持葛兰素史克(GSK)等公司联合指控的决定，对“专利权利要求和继续申请最终规定”签发临时禁制令。然而，USPTO并未因此放弃施行该规定的努力，力争在 2008年就此举行全体听证会。此外，IDS的相关修订也将于2008年初采纳。 3、联邦最高法院积极审理专利案件 美国联邦最高法院在2007年积极审理专利纠纷案，对MedImmune诉Genentech及KSR诉Teleflex案作出裁决，并正着手审理有可能探讨专利权穷竭期限的LG诉Quanta案，且定于2008年中期予以裁决。 MedImmune诉Genentech案(2007年1月)：外界普遍认为，法院对该案的判决使得专利被许可人质疑被许可专利有效性的指控变得容易。 KSR诉Teleflex案(2007年5月)：此案的审理将会引发对寻求专利授权的发明申请的非显而易见性程度的准确理解。尽管多数评论人员都认为，这一标准令人难以界定。 同时，拟议的《美国专利改革法案》仍继续在美国国会审议。尽管此前众议院版的改革法案已获众议院审议批准，但却在参议院遭到停滞。因此，目前还尚无法断论这项美国专利立法50年来的最大变革是否会付诸实现。但或许答案会在2009年1月公诸于众。(任晓玲) 注：1.本文为全文翻译。 2.文中小标题系译者加注。 3.括号内币种为译者注，原文未标明。 4.据法国工业产权网站报道，《伦敦协议》将于2008年5月1日正式生效。 [ Last edited by shich68 on 2008-5-23 at 14:39 ] |
4楼2008-04-09 06:43:37
简单回复
lchrong10楼
2008-04-22 11:21
回复
支持
[ Last edited by shich68 on 2008-5-23 at 14:40 ]
[ Last edited by shich68 on 2008-5-23 at 14:40 ]
独孤久健11楼
2008-05-22 17:40
回复
[ Last edited by shich68 on 2008-5-23 at 14:41 ]
20