[10-12-2006] Trivial patents turn out to be not such a trivial issue after all...
Interesting news on the patent front in the US - the Supreme Court is finally getting round to taking a look at the problems with so-called 'trivial' patents. These are patents which have been granted for 'inventions' which are just obvious or trivial combinations of previous patents.
Currently, in order to challenge such a patent you have to demonstrate that there was a 'teaching, suggestion, or motivation' to combine existing tech in the patent under challenge. You can imagine how much scope language like this leaves for lawyer to dissemble for hours on end. (American Express? Kerrr-ching - that'll do nicely...)
As Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia put it, "It's misleading to say that the whole world is embraced within these three nouns. This is gobbledygook. It really is, it's irrational..."
So will this dubious method of extending patent protection be zapped?
Difficult to say. The problem is that it's a favourite tactic of the big pharmaceutical companies. As their patents start to run out, and the threat of generic versions of the drug undermining their exorbitant profits is raised, they have the habit of combining the threatened drug with another obvious one and patenting the resulting combination.
It really is going to be interesting to see what the Supreme Court finally comes up with.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/29/supremes_make_sense_of_patents/
Currently, in order to challenge such a patent you have to demonstrate that there was a 'teaching, suggestion, or motivation' to combine existing tech in the patent under challenge. You can imagine how much scope language like this leaves for lawyer to dissemble for hours on end. (American Express? Kerrr-ching - that'll do nicely...)
As Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia put it, "It's misleading to say that the whole world is embraced within these three nouns. This is gobbledygook. It really is, it's irrational..."
So will this dubious method of extending patent protection be zapped?
Difficult to say. The problem is that it's a favourite tactic of the big pharmaceutical companies. As their patents start to run out, and the threat of generic versions of the drug undermining their exorbitant profits is raised, they have the habit of combining the threatened drug with another obvious one and patenting the resulting combination.
It really is going to be interesting to see what the Supreme Court finally comes up with.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/29/supremes_make_sense_of_patents/