Patent eligibility - The ‘sick-man’ of patent law

Access to Information and Knowledge: 21st Century Challenges in Intellectual Property and Knowledge Governance

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 139-163

  Ellyne, Erika ^a  

^a VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85039060058     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781783470488.00013     Document Type: Chapter

References (135)

1. T.M. Sichelman, Commercializing Patents, Stan. L. Rev. 2010, Vol. 62, pp. 341-411.
2. R.S. Eisenberg, Patents and the Progress of Science, in: D. Vaver (ed.), Intellectual Property Rights: Critical Concepts of Law, London, Routledge, 2006, p. 93.
3. S.M. Benjamin and A.K. Rai, Who’s Afraid of the APA? What the Patent System Can Learn from Administrative Law, Georgetown L. J., 2007, pp. 269, 275.
4. D. Guellec and B. van Potteslberghe De la Potterie, The Economics of the European Patent System: IP Policy for Innovation and Competition Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 58.
5. M. Buydens, L’intérêt Générale, une Notion Protéiforme, in: M. Buydens and S. Dussolier (eds), L’intérêt Général et L’accès à L’information en Propritété Intellectuelle, Brussels, Bruylant, 2008, pp. 6, 24.
6. M. Vivant, Le Système des Brevets en Question, in: B. Remiche (ed.), Innovation et Intérête Général, Brussels, Larcier, 2007, p. 27.
7. M. Buydens, Le Système des Brevets en Question, in: B. Remiche (ed.), Innovation et Intérête Général, Brussels, Larcier, 2007, p. 29.
8. N. Elkin-Koren and E. Salzberger, The Law and Economics of Intellectual Property in the Digital Ages, London, Routledge, 2013.
9. N. Elkin-Koren and E. Salzberger, The Law and Economics of Intellectual Property in the Digital Ages, London, Routledge, 2013 p. 59.
10. F.S. Kieff, On the Economics of Patent Law and Policy, in: T. Takenaka (ed.), Patent Law and Theory, Cheltenham (UK)/Northampton, MA (USA), Edward Elgar, 2008, p. 26.
11. B. Martin, Against Intellectual Property, in: P. Drahos (ed.), Intellectual Property, Farnham, Ashgate, 1999, p. 518.
12. D. Guellec and B. van Potteslberghe, Against Intellectual Property, in: P. Drahos (ed.), Intellectual Property, Farnham, Ashgate, 1999, p. 49.
13. K. Arrow, Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in: Universities National Bureau (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, UMI, 1962, p. 11, available at: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2144.pdf
14. F.S. Kieff, Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in: Universities National Bureau (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, UMI, 1962, p. 26.
15. D. Guellec and B. van Potteslberghe, Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in: Universities National Bureau (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, UMI, 1962, p. 49.
16. N. Elkin-Koren and E. Salzberger, Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in: Universities National Bureau (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, UMI, 1962, p. 57.
17. N. Elkin-Koren and E. Salzberger, Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in: Universities National Bureau (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, UMI, 1962, p. 58.
18. R. Peritz, Competition Policy in America, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 240-45.
19. C. Hettinger, Justifying Intellectual Property, Phil. & Pub. Aff., 1998, Vol. 1, p. 48.
20. D. Guellec and B. van Potteslberghe, Justifying Intellectual Property, Phil. & Pub. Aff., 1998, Vol. 1, p. 49.
21. M. Carroll, One Size Does Not Fit All: A Framework For Tailoring Intellectual Property Rights, Wash. Coll. of L. Research Paper No. 2010-07, p. 1367, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1585464.
22. R. Spinello and M. Bottis, A Defense of Intellectual Property Rights, Cheltenham (UK)/Northampton, MA (USA), Edward Elgar, 2009, p. 167.
23. A. Plant, The Economic Theory Concerning Patents for Inventions, in: David Vaver (ed.) Intellectual Property Rights: Critical Concepts of Law, London, Routledge, 2006, pp. 30, 32.
24. A. Plant, The Economic Theory Concerning Patents for Inventions, in: David Vaver (ed.) Intellectual Property Rights: Critical Concepts of Law, London, Routledge, 2006, p. 32.
25. R.S. Eisenberg, The Economic Theory Concerning Patents for Inventions, in: David Vaver (ed.) Intellectual Property Rights: Critical Concepts of Law, London, Routledge, 2006, p. 87.
26. M. Buydens, La Propriété Intellectuelle, Evolution Historique and Philosophique, Brussels, Bruylant, 2012, pp. 309-15
27. F. Machlup and E. Penrose, The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century, J. Econ. Hist., 1950, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1, 11.
28. M. Vivant, The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century, J. Econ. Hist., 1950, Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 28.
29. http://www.law.kyushu-u.ac.jp/programsinenglish/conference2010/draft01.pdf
30. E. Coke, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (first published 1628, London (UK)/New York (USA), Garland Publishing, 1979), p. 184.
31. A. Plant, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (first published 1628, London (UK)/New York (USA), Garland Publishing, 1979), p. 30.
32. E.C. Hettinger, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (first published 1628, London (UK)/New York (USA), Garland Publishing, 1979), p. 48.
33. B. Martin, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (first published 1628, London (UK)/New York (USA), Garland Publishing, 1979), p. 522.
34. G. Lunney, Reexamining Copyright’s Incentives - Access Paradigm, Vand. L. Rev., 1996, p. 483.
35. F.S. Kieff, Reexamining Copyright’s Incentives - Access Paradigm, Vand. L. Rev., 1996, p. 35.
36. D. Guellec and B. van Potteslberghe, Reexamining Copyright’s Incentives - Access Paradigm, Vand. L. Rev., 1996, pp. 52-3
37. N. Elkin-Koren and E. Salzberger, Reexamining Copyright’s Incentives - Access Paradigm, Vand. L. Rev., 1996.
38. H. Ullrich, Select From Within: The European Patent With Unitary Effect, in: C. Geiger (ed.), What Patent Law for Europe?, Paris, Litec, forthcoming, p. 5, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2159672.
39. M. Carroll, Select From Within: The European Patent With Unitary Effect, in: C. Geiger (ed.), What Patent Law for Europe?, Paris, Litec, forthcoming, p. 1368.
40. H. Ullrich, Select From Within: The European Patent With Unitary Effect, in: C. Geiger (ed.), What Patent Law for Europe?, Paris, Litec, forthcoming, p. 8.
41. J. Pila, On the European Requirement for an Invention IIC 2010, Vol. 41, No. 8, pp. 906, 915.
42. N. Lee, Patent Eligible Subject Matter Reconfiguration and The Emergence of Proprietarian Norms - The Patent Eligibility of Business Methods, 2002, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=400100.
43. J. Pila, Software Patents, Separation of Powers, and Failed Syllogisms: A Cornucopia from the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office, Cambridge L. J., 2010, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 203, 237.
44. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1612518.
45. J. Pila, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1612518 p. 2.
46. M. Lemley, T. Sichelman, M. Risch and R.P.Wagner, Life After Bilski, Stan. L. Rev., 2011, p. 1315.
47. Lemley, et al., Life After Bilski, Stan. L. Rev., 2011, p. 1315.
48. T. Sichelman, Funk Forward, in: R.C. Dreyfuss, J. Ginsburg and C. Rose (eds), Intellectual Property at the Edge: The Contested Contours of IP, 2013 (forthcoming), available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2035027.
49. N. Lee, Applying Institutional Choice Theory to Patent Right Case of Patentable Subject Matter Debates, International Symposium Hokkaido, 30 January 2009, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1696023.
50. H. Ullrich, Applying Institutional Choice Theory to Patent Right Case of Patentable Subject Matter Debates, International Symposium Hokkaido, 30 January 2009, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1696023 p. 6
51. H. Ullrich, Propriété Intellectuelle, Concurrence et Régulation, Revue International De Droit Economique, 2009, pp. 399-450, p. 439.
52. T. Sichelman, Propriété Intellectuelle, Concurrence et Régulation, Revue International De Droit Economique, 2009, p. 8.
53. J. Pila, Propriété Intellectuelle, Concurrence et Régulation, Revue International De Droit Economique, 2009, p. 8.
54. C. Floyd, Novelty under the Patents Act 1977: the State of the Art After Merrell Dow, EIPR 1996, pp. 480, 485.
55. N. Lee, Novelty under the Patents Act 1977: the State of the Art After Merrell Dow, EIPR 1996, p. 13.
56. S. Harmon, From Engagement to Re-Engagement: the Expression of Moral Values in European Patent Proceedings, Past and Future, E. L. Rev., 2006, pp. 642, 644.
57. European Patent Office, Case Law From the Contracting States to the EPC 3004-2011 (Report), available at: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/national-patent-decisions.html.
58. J. Cockbain and S. Sterckx, The Patentability of Computer Programs in Europe: An Improved Interpretation of Article 52(2) and (3) of the European Patent Convention, J.W.I.P., 2010, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 366, 371.
59. S. Thambisetty, Increasing Returns in the Patent System: Institutional Sources and Consequences for law, LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers, 2009, pp. 11 et seq., available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/wps/WPS2009-07_Thambisetty.pdf.
60. S. Marsnik and R. Thomas, Drawing a Line in the Patent Subject-Matter Sands: Does Europe Provide a Solution to the Software and Business Method Patent Problem?, Boston Coll. Int’l & Comp. L. J., 2011, Vol. 34, No. 2, p. 227.
61. K.J. Melullis, Some Problems of Patent Law from a German Viewpoint, 13th European Patent Judges’ Symposium, Special Edition, Thessalonica, 2007, p. 2, available at: http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj007/04_07/special_edition_2_judges_symposium.pdf.
62. J. Pila, Some Problems of Patent Law from a German Viewpoint, 13th European Patent Judges’ Symposium, Special Edition, Thessalonica, 2007, 33, 43.
63. C. Floyd, Some Problems of Patent Law from a German Viewpoint, 13th European Patent Judges’ Symposium, Special Edition, Thessalonica, 2007, 33, 43.
64. S. Marsnik and R. Thomas, Some Problems of Patent Law from a German Viewpoint, 13th European Patent Judges’ Symposium, Special Edition, Thessalonica, 2007, pp. 2-303.
65. J. Pila, The Future Requirement for an Invention: Inherent Patentability as a Pre- and Post Patent-Determinant, in: G. Ghidini and E. Arezzo (eds), Biotechnology and Software Patent Law: A Comparative Review on New Developments, Cheltenham (UK)/Northampton, MA (USA), Edward Elgar, 2011.
66. J. Pila, The Future Requirement for an Invention: Inherent Patentability as a Pre- and Post Patent-Determinant, in: G. Ghidini and E. Arezzo (eds), Biotechnology and Software Patent Law: A Comparative Review on New Developments, Cheltenham (UK)/Northampton, MA (USA), Edward Elgar, 2011.
67. http://www.epo.org/about-us/boards-of-appeal.html.
68. J. Cockbain and S. Sterckx, http://www.epo.org/about-us/boards-of-appeal.html, p. 371.
69. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/047.htm.
70. N. Lee, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/047.htm, p. 12.
71. J. Pila, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/047.htm, p. 145.
72. N. Lee, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/047.htm, p. 13.
73. Case T 1227/05 Circuit Simulation I/Infineon Technologies, TBoA 3.5.01 [13.12.2006], 3, available at: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t051227ep1.html
74. Case T 930/05 Modellieren eines Prozessnetzwerkes/XPERT, TBoA 3.5.01[10.11.2006], available at: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t050930du1.html.
75. http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/1ae7315e321e933ec12577bd0024d650/$FILE/Case_law_of_the_boards_of_appeal_2010_en.pdf.
76. J. Cockbain and S. Sterckx, A Sun-Tanned or 3D smurf? Patentability of Computer Programs in Europe, J.I.P.L.P., 2011, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 254-61.
77. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-lawappeals/recent/t971173ex1.html.
78. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-lawappeals/recent/t950931ex1.html
79. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-lawappeals/recent/t030258ex1.html.
80. T 258/03, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-lawappeals/recent/t030258ex1.html p. 16.
81. T 258/03, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-lawappeals/recent/t030258ex1.html p. 16.
82. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t020619ep1.html.
83. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t040154ex1.html.
84. http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj1985/p157_186.pdf.
85. EPC, http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj1985/p157_186.pdf.
86. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061658eu1.html.
87. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t051227ep1.html.
88. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t101225eu1.html.
89. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t050912eu1.html.
90. J. Cockbain and S. Sterckx, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t050912eu1.html p. 259.
91. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t050930du1.html
92. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t040154ep1.html
93. J. Cockbain and S. Sterckx, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t040154ep1.html p. 261.
94. J. Cockbain and S. Sterckx, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t040154ep1.html p. 326.
95. http://www.epo.org/lawpractice/case-law-appeals/recent/t102258eu1.html.
96. Clad Metals, http://www.epo.org/lawpractice/case-law-appeals/recent/t102258eu1.html 3.
97. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t081909eu1.pdf.
98. T 1909/08, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t081909eu1.pdf
99. J. Pila, T 1909/08, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t081909eu1.pdf p. 141.
100. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t000641ep1.html.
101. J. Cockbain and S. Sterckx, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t000641ep1.html, p. 390.
102. T 641/00, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t000641ep1.html, 4.
103. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2010/e/clr_i_d_8_1_3.htm
104. J. Pila, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2010/e/clr_i_d_8_1_3.htm pp. 222.
105. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t060784eu1.pdf.
106. J. Cockbain and S. Sterckx, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t060784eu1.pdf, p. 390.
107. J. Cockbain and S. Sterckx, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t060784eu1.pdf p. 390.
108. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t091782eu1.html.
109. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html.
110. T 336/07, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html 2.2
111. T 1543/06, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html 2.7-2.8.
112. T 336/07, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html 2.3.
113. T 336/07, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html 2.2
114. T 1543/06, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html 2.7-2.9.
115. T 336/07, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html 2.2
116. T 1543/06, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html 2.7-2.9.
117. T 336/07, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html 2.3-2.4
118. T 1543/06, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html 2.7-2.9.
119. T 336/07, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html 2.2-2.6.
120. T 336/07, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html 2.4-2.5.
121. T 1543/06, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html.
122. J. Cockbain and S. Sterckx, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html, p. 384.
123. J. Pila, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061543eu1.html pp. 910-12.
124. J. Pila, Dispute over the Meaning of ‘Invention’ in Article 52(2) EPC - The Patentability of computer-implemented Inventions in Europe, Int’l. Rev. Industrial Prop. & Copyright, 2005, Vol. 36, pp. 186 et seq., available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=593881.
125. T 336/07, Dispute over the Meaning of ‘Invention’ in Article 52(2) EPC - The Patentability of computer-implemented Inventions in Europe, Int’l. Rev. Industrial Prop. & Copyright, 2005, Vol. 36, 2.4-2.5.
126. T 1543/06, Dispute over the Meaning of ‘Invention’ in Article 52(2) EPC - The Patentability of computer-implemented Inventions in Europe, Int’l. Rev. Industrial Prop. & Copyright, 2005, Vol. 36, 2.4-2.5.
127. T 1225/10, Dispute over the Meaning of ‘Invention’ in Article 52(2) EPC - The Patentability of computer-implemented Inventions in Europe, Int’l. Rev. Industrial Prop. & Copyright, 2005, Vol. 36, 2.4-2.5.
128. N. Lee, Dispute over the Meaning of ‘Invention’ in Article 52(2) EPC - The Patentability of computer-implemented Inventions in Europe, Int’l. Rev. Industrial Prop. & Copyright, 2005, Vol. 36, p. 18.
129. S. Ghosh, Patent Law and the Assurance Game: Refitting Intellectual Property in the Box of Regulation, Canadian J. of L. and Jurisprudence, 2005, p. 307.
130. S. Ghosh, Carte Blanche, Quanta and Competition Policy, J. of Corporation L., Innovation and Competition Policy, 2009, p. 1209.
131. H. Ullrich, Intellectual Property: Exclusive rights for a purpose - The case of technology protection by patents and copyright, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2179511.
132. N. Lee, Intellectual Property: Exclusive rights for a purpose - The case of technology protection by patents and copyright, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2179511 p. 7.
133. P. Leith, Judicial or Administrative Roles: The Patent Appellate System in the European Context, Intell. Prop. Quarterly, 2001, p. 50.
134. S. Thambisetty, Judicial or Administrative Roles: The Patent Appellate System in the European Context, Intell. Prop. Quarterly, 2001, p. 50.
135. S. Thambisetty, Judicial or Administrative Roles: The Patent Appellate System in the European Context, Intell. Prop. Quarterly, 2001, p. 50.