By Ingrid Marson, 8 February 2006 08:35
NEWS
The UK Patent Office (UKPO) has launched a public consultation to examine how well the current patent system works and whether too many trivial patents are being granted.
One of the main criteria of patentability under UK patent law is that 'inventions' must "not be obvious to someone with a good knowledge and experience of the subject", according to the UKPO. But now it wants to find out whether this requirement meets the needs of inventors, the public at large and the UK economy.
"Are too many 'trivial patents' being granted? Or are innovation and competitiveness best served by easy patenting with low hurdles?" asks the UKPO.
Ron Marchant, chief executive of the UKPO, said it is important to strike the right balance with the criterion of inventiveness.
"An inventive step requirement which is too difficult for applicants to achieve could result in inventions that might deserve a patent not receiving protection, thus hindering the applicant in research and investment. Alternatively, the danger of an inventive step which is too easy to meet is that patents could be obtained for small changes or improvements which hamper the legitimate activities of third parties. It is important that they help us to find the best solution," he said in a statement.
Over the last few years there has been increasing criticism of patent offices around the world for granting trivial patents. Last year, a study found that a quarter of US patent holders thought the quality of patents was "somewhat worse" than three years ago, with the quality of patents granted in the technology industry thought to be worse than in any other major sector. The FFII, an intellectual property campaign group, provides information on a number of European Patent Office software patents that it considers trivial, including a patent for a progress bar and a menu tab.
In an interview last year, a software manager at a small technology company, told silicon.com sister site ZDNet UK that large companies tend to swamp patent offices with well-worded patent applications for trivial technologies in the knowledge that a certain proportion of them will be passed.
Responses to the public consultation should be returned to the Patent Office by 31 May.
Comments
There are 2 comments. Join the discussion
1. Charles Smith
The US Patents Office should take much better account of prior art before granting a patent. Many patents have been granted to the wrong people for processes in the public domain. A lot of those patents granted are too broad. The only people to gain from this are the patent vampires who probably had nothing to do with the the funding or creative effort of original invention.
The UK Patents office seems to be more aware and should be a guidlight for the darkness of the US and EU Patents officials.
2. anonymous
There are two things we need to address...
1. Patents are Ok, as far as it goes, but enforcing them is nigh-on impossible unless you are very wealthy. Hands-up anyone who could sue Apple or Microsoft if they copied your work, Thought so.
2. We must not go down the route that the USA has gone with patenting software. I heard that Apple claimed to have a patent for 'selecting items on a menu' - surely prior art exists here, from the very first restaurant?