In the past
few years, it has been witnessed that proliferation
ofpatents is in
the two industries that are central to the information economy - computer software and biotechnology. Many commentators fear that
the rush to patent in these economically vital industries will lead to development
but with retarded innovation and restricted information flow. The proliferation of
high-technology patents directly associates the
two institutions that are primarily accountable for administering the patent
system - the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"), which grants patents and the Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
("CAFC"), which hears all patent appeals. Moreover, given that the
CAFC's reversal of PTO decisions denying patent
protection to certain biotechnology and computer program inventions has been a
major reason for the recent proliferation of patents, it is
important to reconsider the relationship between the CAFC and the PTO. This
paper argues that, from the standpoint of
institutional competence, the CAFC should not independently review the PTO's
decisions denying patentability. Rather, it should apply traditional
administrative principles of deference to the
PTO's patentability denials.Read the link it has got all the information you need
few years, it has been witnessed that proliferation
ofpatents is in
the two industries that are central to the information economy - computer software and biotechnology. Many commentators fear that
the rush to patent in these economically vital industries will lead to development
but with retarded innovation and restricted information flow. The proliferation of
high-technology patents directly associates the
two institutions that are primarily accountable for administering the patent
system - the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"), which grants patents and the Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
("CAFC"), which hears all patent appeals. Moreover, given that the
CAFC's reversal of PTO decisions denying patent
protection to certain biotechnology and computer program inventions has been a
major reason for the recent proliferation of patents, it is
important to reconsider the relationship between the CAFC and the PTO. This
paper argues that, from the standpoint of
institutional competence, the CAFC should not independently review the PTO's
decisions denying patentability. Rather, it should apply traditional
administrative principles of deference to the
PTO's patentability denials.Read the link it has got all the information you need
