Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2012897
 


 



The Presumption of Patentability


Sean B. Seymore


Vanderbilt University - Law School

February 28, 2012

Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 97, pp. 990-1046, 2013

Abstract:     
When the Framers of the United States Constitution granted Congress the authority to create a patent system, they certainty did not envision a patent as an a priori entitlement. As it stands now, anyone who files a patent application on anything is entitled to a presumption of patentability. A patent examiner who seeks to challenge patentability faces the dual burden of building a prima facie case of unpatentability and carrying the ultimate burden of proof. Thus, from the outset, an applicant is in a very good position; but the examiner’s limited resources, time pressures, and production goals tip the scales even further toward patent issuance. This entitlement regime increases the number of patent application filings on questionable inventions, contributes to the proliferation of low-quality patents, impedes patent reform, hinders innovation, and frustrates patent policy. Yet these problems are often attributed to other causes and the potential role of the presumption and proof framework has largely been overlooked. But can it be fixed?

This Article proposes a way to rebalance the scales of patentability during patent examination. By demanding more from the applicant, it makes the issuance of a patent far from a sure thing. The proposed regime makes three key changes in the rules of patent examination. First, the locution of the dual burdens would be decoupled such that the initial burden of coming forward with evidence of unpatentability (building a prima facie case) would remain with the examiner but the burden of persuasion on the ultimate issue would now rest with the applicant. Second, the current presumption of patentability would be replaced with a presumption of unpatentability. As a result, an applicant who could not adduce proof of patentability by a preponderance of the evidence would face a rejection. Third, in an effort to produce more technically robust patents, the restrictions on amending patent documents after filing would be relaxed so that an applicant who adduces proof of patentability could incorporate the additional information into the issued patent. Aside from derailing questionable patents, this regime would lead to more efficient patent examination, improved patent quality, better inventions, better disclosure, and fewer obstacles to innovation.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 57

Keywords: patents, patentability, presumptions, proof, disclosure, knowledge, innovation

JEL Classification: O31, O32, O33, O34, O38, O40, O48, K39

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: February 12, 2013 ; Last revised: November 23, 2013

Suggested Citation

Seymore, Sean B., The Presumption of Patentability (February 28, 2012). Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 97, pp. 990-1046, 2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2012897

Contact Information

Sean B. Seymore (Contact Author)
Vanderbilt University - Law School ( email )
131 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37203-1181
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 866
Downloads: 94
Download Rank: 166,142
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.282 seconds