Patent reform in Europe and the US

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 36, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 631-640

  Borrás, Susana ^a   Kahin, Brian ^b  

^a Department of Innovation and Organizational Economics   (Denmark)

^b Computer and Communications Industry Association ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM; ASYMMETRY; COMPLEXITY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GLOBALIZATION; INNOVATION; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; LEGAL SYSTEM; REGULATORY APPROACH;

EURASIA; EUROPE; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 70350169652     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/030234209X474589     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Arundel, Anthony 2001. Patents in the knowledge-based econ-omy. Beleidsstudies Technologie Economie. The Dutch Minis-try of Economy. 37, 83-107.
2. Benyamini, Amiram 1993. Patent Infringement in the European Community. Weinheim, Germany: VCH Publishers.
3. Bessen, James and Michael Meurer 2008. Patent Failure. Prince-ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Biddinger, Brian P 2001. Note: Limiting the business method pat-ent: A comparison and proposed alignment of European, Japanese, and United States Patent Law. Fordham Law Re-view, 69, 2523.
5. Borrás, Susana 2006. The governance of the European Patent System: effective and legitimate? Economy and Society, 35(4), 594-610.
6. Burk, Dan L and Mark A Lemley 2009. The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7. Chisum, Donald S 1994. Chisum on Patents: A Treatise on the Law of Patentability, Validity and Infringement, Washington, DC: Matthew Bender.
8. Di Cataldo, Vincenzo 2002. From the European Patent to a Community Patent. Columbia Journal of European Law, 8(1), 19-35.
9. Doern, Bruce1997. The European Patent Office and the political economy of intellectual property policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(3), 388-403.
10. Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper 2004. The Federal Circuit: A Continu-ing Experiment in Specialization, 54 Case W. Res. 769. Law Review or Law Journal.
11. European Patent Office 2007. Scenarios for the Future. Available at last accessed 21 September 2009.
12. Ford, R 1997. The morality of biotech patents: Differing legal obligations in Europe? European Intellectual Property Review, 6, 315.
13. Govaere, Inge 1996. The Use and Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights in EC Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
14. Guellec, Dominique and B van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie 2007. The Economics of the European Patent System: IP Policy for Innovation and Competition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
15. Jaffe, Adam and Josh Lerner 2004. Innovation and its Discon-tents. How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innova-tion and Progress, and What to Do about It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16. Jensen, Paul H, Alfons Palangkarayas and Elizabeth M Webster 2005. Patent Application Outcomes across the Trilateral Pat-ent Offices. Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 5/05. Available at SSRN: last accessed 22 September 2009.
17. Krieger, A 1998. When will the European Community patent finally arrive? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC), 29(8), 855-876.
18. Lemley, Mark A and Kimberly A Moore 2004. Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations, 84 B. U. L. Rev. 63.
19. Magglioca, Gerard 2007. Blackberries and barnyards: patent trolls and the perils of innovation. Notre Dame Law Review, (82) 1809.
20. Michel, Paul R 1999. A review of recent decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Foreword. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must evolve to meet the challenges ahead. 48 American University Law Review, 1177.
21. Moore, Kimberly A 2005. Markman eight years later: is claim con-struction more predictable?, Lewis & Clark Law Review, (9) 231-333, page 15.
22. Mossinghoff, Gerald 2005. The first-to-invent rule in the US patent system has provided no advantage to small entities. Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society, 87, 514.
23. Park, Jinseok 2005. Has patentable subject matter been expanded? A comparative study on software patent practices in the Euro-pean Patent Office, the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Japanese Patent Office. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 13(3), 336-377.
24. Sell, Susan K 2003. Private Power, Public Law: the Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25. Thomas, John R 1999. The Post-Industrial Patent System. Ford-ham Intellectual Property Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 10(3).
26. Wagner, Stefan 2004. Business Method Patents in Europe and their Strategic Use Evidence from Franking Device Manufac-turers SFB Discussion Paper No. 386. Available at SSRN: or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.599743.
27. Wagner, Stefan and John Parchomovsky 2005. Patent Portfolios, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(1). Available at urlhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=874445, last accessed 21 September 2009.
28. Vinje, Thomas C 1995. Harmonizing intellectual property laws in the EU: past present and future, European Intellectual Prop-erty Review, 8, 361-377.