Comparative Law Review

Comparative Law Review

A Comparative Study of the Legislation and its Impact on the Patent Process, with a Case Study of the Same Invention in Iran and the United States

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Saeed Habiba 1
Zahra Bahadori Jahromi 2
1 Professor at Faculty of Law and political science, university of Tehran, Tehran,Iran.
2 PH.D Graduated from University of Tehran, Tehran,Iran
10.22059/jcl.2017.220089.633551
Abstract
Statistics on registration function of Iranian patent office shows that the number of registered inventions has reduced between 1386-1393. The number of issued patents from 10346 in 1387 reduced to 3436 patents in 1392. This is while at the same time from 2008-2013 the number of Iranian patents registered in USPTO increased from 2 to 40. On the other hands there are many problems with commercialization of inventions in Iran and more than 90% of registered patents remain in the archives and never gets a way to the trade. But what are the reasons? This article studies one of the probable reasons, legal defects on patent registration. So a comparative study on the patent Laws of two countries has been done. In this way it studied the laws and the issued patents from the two offices which are analyzed by technical expert. And it is proved that how different legal text effects the function of the patent systems.
Keywords
DisclosureŁˆ
claim
Patent
registration
Concessional rights
  1. Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, World Trade Organization.
  2. U.S. Patent Law, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (consolidated as of May 2015)
  3. Draft for protecting industrial property (patents, industrial designs, trademarks)
  4. Patents, Industrial Designs and Trademarks Registration Act (2008)
  5.  Executive Regulation of Patent, Industrial Designs and Trademarks Registration Law (2009)

 

Persian sources

  1. Habiba, saeed, bahadori, Zahra (1393), Inventive Step in Nanotechnology Patents,  Iranian journal of trade studies Volume 19, Issue 73, Winter 2015, Page 77-98.
  2. Hekmatnia, mahmoud (2007), the theorical fundations of intellectual property, Islamic Research Institute for Culture and Thought, first publication.
  3. Mina, sara, (2011),The Requirement of Disclosure in Registration of Inventions and its Challenges in Biotechnological Law, a thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of M.A in intellectual property law, university of Tehran.
  4. Mirhosseini, s.h(2008) law of patents, mizan legal foundation, first publication.
  5. Patent application number 139350140003000698
  6. Patent number 38706161
  7. Beigzade, s.(2008), manual for style of writing laws, Islamic Parliament Research Center Of The Islamic Republic Of IRAN,

 

English sourcess

  1. Durie, Daralyn J. and Lemley, Mark A., (February 2, 2011(, A Realistic Approach to the Obviousness of Inventions). William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 50, 2008;
  2.  Janice M. Mueller, (2014), Patent Claim Interpretation, in Mueller on Patent Law, Vol. ii (Patent Enforcement) (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business).
  3.  Johnson, Daniel K. N. and Popp, David, (2003), “Forced Out of the Closet: The Impact of the American Inventors Protection Act on the Timing of Patent Disclosure”. RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.96-112. 
  4.  Rafiquzzaman, Mohammed, (2002), “The Impact of Patent Rights on International Trade: Evidence from Canada”. Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 35, pp. 307-330.
  5.  U.S Patent No. US20120085311   , Available at : https://www.google.ch/patents/US20120085311.
  6. WIPO, Intellectual Property handbook, WIPO Publication, No.489 (E) Second Edition, 2008, page 21. N. 2.33
  7. http://iripo.ssaa.ir/Default.aspx?tabid=3549#1555024----. Last seen 9/10/2016
  8.  18. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_all.htm, Last seen 9/10/2016
Comparative Law Review
Volume 8, Issue 2
Autumn & Winter
October 2018
Pages 565-581