The Effect of Annulment of Patent on Contracts Considering Requirements of Patent Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 profesor

2 MA of International Trade Law of Faculty of law and Political Sciences

Abstract

An invention that meets novelty, inventive step, and industrial application is patentable. After the registration of an invention, a patent is granted and, as an official document, implies the ownership of the holder. Due to some grounds, such as not meeting one of the substantive requirements, the patent might become invalidated by a court order.  According to the Article 18 of the Patents, Industrial Designs and Trademarks Act of Iran, patent invalidation has retroactive effect and invalidates all contracts which have been concluded based on patented inventions. Invalidity of the contract indicates that the invalidated contract has never been existing, and parties’ rights and obligations have never been in existence; consequently, the other party of the contract, such as licensee, could recoup the whole paid consideration. The adoption of this idea is inconsistent with the purposes of Patent Law, including incentivizing, encouraging to resort to patent system, protection of inventors, commercialization of inventions, stability of contracts, and trust in the market; and it could be deemed as a serious obstacle to these matters. In this research, by taking the necessities of  Patent Law, including the need to facilitate innovation and commercialization of inventions and to create a climate free of bad patents, into consideration, this legislator’s approach is criticized, and its contradiction to the public interest, the dissemination of knowledge, the process of commercialization, and transfer of technology will be demonstrated. Finally, the amendment of the mentioned act and not perceiving contracts as void will be proposed in order to foster the process of innovation. 

Keywords

Main Subjects


- امامی، سید حسن (137؛ حقوق مدنی، جلد اول، چاپ هفدهم، تهران، کتاب‌فروشی اسلامیه.
- رهبری، ابراهیم (1392)؛ حقوق انتقال فناوری، چاپ اول، تهران: سمت.
- صابری، روح الله (1387)؛ قراردادهای لیسانس، چاپ اول، تهران: شهر دانش.
- صادقی، محمود و امینی، مهدی (1391)؛ موجبات و آثار ابطال گواهینامه اختراع، مجله مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، دوره 3، شماره1، صص 55 تا 72.
- صادقی، محمود و جوهری، مهدی (1391)؛ ذینفع در دعاوی ناشی از اختراع از نگاه قانون و رویه قضایی، فصل نامه دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، شماره 59، صص 117 تا 144.
- شمس، عبدالله (1391)؛ آیین دادرسی مدنی- دوره پیشرفته، جلد نخست، تهران: انتشارات دراک.
- کاتوزیان، ناصر (1376)؛ قواعد عمومی قراردادها، جلد دوم، چاپ چهارم، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
-  صالحی ذهابی، جمال (1388)؛ حق اختراع. چاپ اول، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
- میر حسینی، سید حسن (1387)؛ حقوق اختراعات، چاپ اول، تهران: میزان.
- میرشمسی، محمدهادی (1387)؛ قراردادهای انتقال و اجازه‌ی بهره‌برداری از حقوق مالکیت صنعتی، رساله‌ی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
- نوروزی، حسین، وصفی، شهرام، فتحی، یحیی، مرادی، زهرا، نشترودی، مریم (1391)؛ نقش حقوق مالکیت فکری در توسعه اقتصاد دانش محور، چاپ اول، تهران: موسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های بازرگانی.
- Barnaby, Howard (1973); patent Law- previously paid Royalty- No Recovery by License Judgment of Invalidity, Boston College Law Review. vol 124, pp500-526.
- Bainbridge, David I.(2009); Intellectual Property, Seventh edition, London: Pearson Education Limited.
- Corea, Carlos M.(2014); Patent Examination and Legal Fictions: How Rights Are Created on Feet of Clay; Research Paper for South Center, Switherland, Available http://www.google.com/url?url=http://makemedicinesaffordable.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Patent-Examination-Legal-
- Dratler, Jay (2004); Licensing of Intellectual Property; New York: Law Jordan Press.
-Durham, Alan L. (2009); Patent Law Essentials, A Cincise Guide, London, Praeger.
- Fisher, Nellie (1997); The Licensee’s Choice: Mechanics of Success Fully Challenging a Patent Under License. Texas Intellectual property Law Journal
- Frakes Michael D., Wasserman Melissa F.(2015); Does the U.S Patent & Trademark Office Grant Too Many Bad Patents? Evidences From a Quasi-Experiment. Stanford Law Review, Vol.67, available at https://www.law.berkeley.edu/.../Frakes_Michael_IPSC_paper_2015.pdf
- Groves, Peter J. (1997); Sourcebook on Intellectual Property Law, London, Cavendish.
- Hart, Richard B.(1973); Patent Law- License Agreement-Royalty Paid Are not Recoverable by Licensee upon Showing of Patent Invalidity, Villanova Law Review, Vol.18, pp968-977
- Henkel, Joachim and Zischka.(2015); Hans, Why Most Patents Are Invalid- Extent, Reason and Potential Remedies of patent Invalidity. TUM School of Management
- Jaffe, Adam B and Josh Lerner (2004); Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress and What to Do About It, Princeton University Press.
- Kesan, Jay and Gallo, Andres.(2006); Why Bad Patents Survive in the Market and How Should We Change? The private and Social costs of patents, Emory Law Journal, Vol 55, pp61-140.
- Landess, William and ponser Richard (2003); The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law, Harvard University Press.
- Lemely Mark and Shapiro Carl (2005); Probabilistic Patents. Journal of Economic Perspective; volum 19, pp75-98.
- Lemely Mark.(2001); Rational Ignorance at Patent Office. Northwestrern University Law Review; volum95, pp497-532.
- Leslie, Christopher (2008); The Anti Competitive Effects of Unenforced Invalid Patents. Minnestota Law Review, Vol 10.
- Pittman, Dylan (2015); Allowing patent Validity challenge Despite No- Challenge Clauses: Full Fling The Will of Kng Lear, Indiana Law Review, Vol 48, pp339-367.
- Roper, Nicholas (2008); Limiting Unfettered Challenges to Patent Validity. Cardozo Law Review, Vol 35, pp1649-1686.
- Server Alfred C. and Singleton, Peter (2008); Licensee Patent Validity Challenge Following Medimmune: Implication For Patent Licensing.
- St . Regis paper C .v. royal Industries , Inc. 552 F.2d 309 317 (2 th , cir 1977)
- Suthersanen, Uma, Dutfield, Graham and Boey, Kit (2007); Innovation Without Patents. Edward Elgar, UK and US .
- Troxel Manufacturing C .v. Royal Industries , Inc , 552 F. 2d 309 , 313 (9 th Cir . 1972)
- Transitron Electronic Co .v. Haughes Aircraft  co , 649 F. 2d 871 , 874 (Ist cir – 1981)
- UNCTAD (2011); Commercialization of Intellectual Property Right; New York and Geneva
 
 
  • Receive Date: 21 July 2017
  • Revise Date: 28 October 2017
  • Accept Date: 31 October 2017
  • First Publish Date: 21 March 2019