Androshchuk H. O. — PhD in Economics, Associate Professor, Chief Senior Researcher, Head of Laboratory of Legal Support of Science and Technology Research, Institute of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine Intellectual Property, 11, Kazуmirа Malevуchа Str., Bldg. 4, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03680; +38 (044) 200-08-76; h.androshchuk@ndiiv.org.ua
Rabotiahova L. I. — Head of the Patent Law Branch of the Industrial Property Department Research, Institute of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine intellectual property, 11, Kazуmirа Malevуchа Str., Bldg. 4, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03680; +38 (044) 200-08-76; rli@ukr.net
REFORM OF THE US PATENT SYSTEM: ANALYSIS OF CHANGES (SECOND PART)
Abstract. The economic and legal problems of efficiency of the functioning of the US patent system are analyzed: the genesis, analysis, recent developments and trends in the development of the US patent system, peculiarities of patent law reform, and the adoption of the Law on Patent Reform “Leahy-Smith America Invents Act”. American society pays much attention to the development of the creative activity of the population and the protection of its results. A patent is an effective means of protecting investments in research and development (R & D), protecting the rights of inventors, protecting the patent holder from unfair competition. A key aspect of the adopted Law on Patent Reform is its international harmonization, which makes the process of filing applications for inventions, conducting their expertise more consistent with patent offices of other countries. Most of the proposed changes bring the US patent system closer to international standards, which is very important for inventors and companies representing world-wide interests. In addition, this law creates new mechanisms for the protection of patents and applications in the patent office in an administrative order. The legislative changes related to the activities of the patent office, financing, fees, accelerated examination of applications, the Chamber for Patent Disputes and Appeals, new procedures for challenging the validity of issued patents, the dynamics of court cases and statistics of patent disputes in the courts of the country are analyzed. Problems of patent trolling and legislative initiatives to counter their negative activities, as well as other issues related to the reform of the American patent system, are highlighted. It is emphasized that the patent system should stimulate the industry to develop new technologies that promote economic growth and create jobs throughout the country, including protecting the rights of small businesses and inventors from predatory policies that could impede the creation of innovations.
Keywords: inventor, innovation, fee, patent system, accelerated examination, patent trolling, promotion.
REFERENCES
1. Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Available at: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/20110916-pub-l112-29.pdf.
2. The US Patent System After the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act by Paul R. Gupta and Alex Feerst. Reprinted from E.I.P.R Issue 1, 2012 Sweet & Maxwell 100 Avenue Road Swiss Cottage London. NW3 3PF (Law Publishers). Available at: https://www.orrick.com/Events-and-Publications/Documents/4466.pdf.
3. Yeremenko V.I. (2012) Reforma patentnogo zakonodatel’stva SSHA [US patent reform legislation]. Izobretatel’stvo [Invention], Vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 1–9.
4. Polonskaya I. (2012) Patentnaya reforma SSHA: pervyye itogi [Patent Reform of the USA: First Results].
Intellektual’naya sobstvennost’. Promyshlennaya sobstvennost’ [Intellectual Property. Industrial property], Vol. 9, pp. 56–63.
5. Armon O., Zambarda M. (2014) Reforming patent litigation strategies // Intellectual Property Magazine, August/July, pp. 59–60.
6. Androshchuk H. (2012) Patentnyi trolinh proty innovatsii: stan, tendentsii, zahrozy [Patent trolling against innovation: status, trends and threats]. Aktualni pytannia innovatsiinoho rozvytku [Actual issues of innovation development], Vol. 3, pp. 33–41.
7. Androshchuk G.A. (2013) Patentnyy trolling protiv innovatsiy: praktika SSHA [Patent trolling against innovation: US practice]. IS. Promyshlennaya sobstvennost’ [IP. Industrial Property], Vol. 4, pp. 66–74.
8. Androshchuk H.O. Zbytky vid dii patentnykh troliv (na prykladi ekonomiky SShA) (2013) [Loss from operations of patent trolls (for example, the US economy)]. Naukovo-tekhnichna informatsiia [Scientific and technical information], Vol. 1 (55), pp. 17–21.
9. Feldman R., Ewing T., Jeruss S. (2013) The AIA 500 expanded: the effects of patent monetization entities. UC Hastings Research Paper,no. 45, April 9. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2247195.
10. 1st Half 2015 Patent Troll Dispute Report. — July 7, 2015. Available at:https://www.unifiedpatents.com/ news/2016/5/5/1st-half-2015-patent-troll-dispute-report.
11. Bessen J.The Evidence is in: Patent Trolls Do Hurt Innovation. 2014. Available at: https://hbr.org/2014/07/the-evidence-is-in-patent-trolls-do-hurtinnovation.
12. Navigating the landscape of anti-trolling legislation. 2016. Available at: https://www.pillsburylaw.
com/siteFiles/Publications/054_056IPM_June_2016 Feat. pdf.
13. 2016 Patent Troll Legislation. 2016. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-servicesand-
commerce/2016-patent-troll-legislation.aspx.
14. Fedorov S.V. Otchego buksuyet patentnaya reforma v SSHA (2014) [Why is patent reform in the United States skidding?], July 28. Available at: https:// habrahabr.ru/post/288424.
15. Indicators of Innovation and Intellectual Property. Science and Engineering Indicators 2016 (NSB-
2016-1). Digest (NSB-2016-2). January 2016. National Science FoundationNational Science Board. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES).
16. Who filed the most PCT patent applications in 2015? Available at: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ipstats/en/docs/infographics_systems_2015.pdf.
