Let's Coordinate in the Long Run the United Comprehension Concerning the Patentable Invention and its Scope of the Protection

Abstract

De facto one of the indisputable shortage of patent laws proves the circumstance, that these have been made without beforehand defining there the legal term of real legal object/object of right – ‘patentable invention’ and as a result of which there have been made centuries-old efforts to reconcile the problem surrounding the determination of what is and is not patentable to the statutory provisions of such laws. Honestly, majority large patent systems - USA, Germany, United Kingdom, etc. and international agreements and conventions – TRIPS, PCT, EPC have not been able to this day to define both the workable legal terms, i.e. ‘invention’ and derived directly from it the one - ‘patentable invention’. The outcome from such formed and retrograde comprehension in lawmaking - continuous uncertainty, reliability and instability of the patent laws, as these are not fulfilling effectively their purpose in society. At the same time I find that lawmakers have had since the beginning of nineteenth century (rather since 1793) sufficient material (information, ideas, and experiences) in order to define abovementioned legal terms, in other words, to describe clearly and exactly what the ones actually are in patenting and litigation procedures. And that is why it should be reasonable and high time to modernize patent laws according to conception and definition of the term ‘patentable invention’ as the patent laws’ real legal object/object of right, i.e. object of legal relations. In other words we should in the long run normalize the legal clarity and certainty of the patent laws. In this article I would like to give at least the initial impulsion and encouragement for this action.NB! You should acquaint yourself also with my other papers at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2034683http://ssrn.com/abstract=2065060http://ssrn.com/abstract=2246154