Rethinking Patent Law's Presumption of Validity
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law
Mark A. Lemley
Stanford Law School
Stanford Law Review, Vol. 60, p. 45, 2007
UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 07-12
Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 963996
Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 353
The United States Patent and Trademark Office is tasked with the job of reading patent applications and determining which ones qualify for patent protection. It is a Herculean task, and the Patent Office pursues it subject to enormous informational and budgetary constraints. Nonetheless, under current law, courts are bound to defer to the Patent Office's decisions regarding patent validity. In this Article, we argue for reform. Deference to previous decision-makers is appropriate in instances where those previous decisions have a high likelihood of accuracy, and the patent system should endeavor to create processes that fit this mold. But granting significant deference to the initial process of patent review is indefensible and counter-productive. Patents should be vulnerable to challenge until and unless they are significantly evaluated in an information-rich environment. At that point, they will have earned and therefore should be accorded a presumption of validity. Such an approach would better serve the patent's systems long-run incentive goals, and it would give patent applicants better incentives to file for genuine inventions but leave their more obvious and incremental accomplishments outside the patent system's purview. Here, we therefore suggest the creation of a two-tier system of patent validity, with patents that are subject to intensive scrutiny accorded a strong presumption of validity, while untested patents are left to be evaluated more fully in court.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 30
Keywords: patent law, patents, patent review, presumption, presumption of validity
JEL Classification: K3Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: August 2, 2007 ; Last revised: February 6, 2011
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.531 seconds