Criminalizing patent infringement?
from cpaglobal-->
In letter to Lord Mandelson, Trevor Baylis argued that criminalizing patent theft would divert lawsuits from the expensive civil system and give lone inventors access to financial support from the State.
Some patent practitioners have taken exception to this view. Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) fellow Peter Jackson told the BBC that the expertise required in patent cases makes them unsuitable for criminal treatment. But Baylis feels that the onus is on attorneys in the first place to produce unambiguous paperwork. 'I think that if a patent is laid out by a patent attorney in a way that cannot be circumnavigated, it should be rock solid,' he said. Ensuring patent quality 'is what the attorneys are paid for'.
Other patent attorneys have argued that criminalizing patent theft would have a 'chilling' effect on innovation, as creators would think twice before filing. 'I can understand what they're saying,' said Baylis, 'but there's no point filing for a patent at all if it can't be successfully utilised or defended.'
to 271Blog-->
For a European view different from that of MaxDrei:
Trevor Baylis feels that the burden is on patent attorneys in the first instance to produce unambiguous paperwork. Ensuring patent quality 'is what the attorneys are paid for'.
(...)
Wagner's first proposal was --encouraging early clarity by having the PTO conduct meaningful claim construction analysis with the applicant during examination -- [See the initial post] MaxDrei argues that deferring clarity is the root of many problems. As to the problem of lack of early clarity, Wagner spoke of incentives that encourage patentees to draft patent applications that effectively obscure the true scope of the invention and its relationship to the prior art.
Baylis argues that the burden is on patent attorneys in the first instance to produce unambiguous paperwork. Baylis is asserting that patent attorneys are supposed to create early clarity, which is the opposite of what Wagner states, and MaxDrei accepts.
Wagner (who may be a registered patent agent according to the roster but who is likely not a patent practitioner) falsely assumed that drafting attorneys are incentivized to avoid clarity, much as he earlier accepted the absurdly high numbers of Quillen and Webster, which numbers a US practitioner would understand from experience alone not to be correct (apart from the fact they were based on legal and numerical errors).
Further, reasons "why" we would not want a patent examiner to include an analysis of claim construction should be apparent from the recent CAFC cases of MARTEK and SKVORECZ.
As to the Baylis quote, see
Criminalizing patent infringement?
In letter to Lord Mandelson, Trevor Baylis argued that criminalizing patent theft would divert lawsuits from the expensive civil system and give lone inventors access to financial support from the State.
Some patent practitioners have taken exception to this view. Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) fellow Peter Jackson told the BBC that the expertise required in patent cases makes them unsuitable for criminal treatment. But Baylis feels that the onus is on attorneys in the first place to produce unambiguous paperwork. 'I think that if a patent is laid out by a patent attorney in a way that cannot be circumnavigated, it should be rock solid,' he said. Ensuring patent quality 'is what the attorneys are paid for'.
Other patent attorneys have argued that criminalizing patent theft would have a 'chilling' effect on innovation, as creators would think twice before filing. 'I can understand what they're saying,' said Baylis, 'but there's no point filing for a patent at all if it can't be successfully utilised or defended.'
to 271Blog-->
For a European view different from that of MaxDrei:
Trevor Baylis feels that the burden is on patent attorneys in the first instance to produce unambiguous paperwork. Ensuring patent quality 'is what the attorneys are paid for'.
(...)
Wagner's first proposal was --encouraging early clarity by having the PTO conduct meaningful claim construction analysis with the applicant during examination -- [See the initial post] MaxDrei argues that deferring clarity is the root of many problems. As to the problem of lack of early clarity, Wagner spoke of incentives that encourage patentees to draft patent applications that effectively obscure the true scope of the invention and its relationship to the prior art.
Baylis argues that the burden is on patent attorneys in the first instance to produce unambiguous paperwork. Baylis is asserting that patent attorneys are supposed to create early clarity, which is the opposite of what Wagner states, and MaxDrei accepts.
Wagner (who may be a registered patent agent according to the roster but who is likely not a patent practitioner) falsely assumed that drafting attorneys are incentivized to avoid clarity, much as he earlier accepted the absurdly high numbers of Quillen and Webster, which numbers a US practitioner would understand from experience alone not to be correct (apart from the fact they were based on legal and numerical errors).
Further, reasons "why" we would not want a patent examiner to include an analysis of claim construction should be apparent from the recent CAFC cases of MARTEK and SKVORECZ.
As to the Baylis quote, see
Criminalizing patent infringement?
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 7:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home