British Patent System Research Articles

Patents, Invention and Democracy in Britain and the United States to 1852

Abstract This paper surveys the American and British patent systems in the period prior to the latter’s reform in 1852 and coinciding with the period of the first industrial revolution. It has been suggested that the British system’s archaic application procedure, extortionately high fees and hostile courts were indicative of an oligarchic socio-political system that purposively sought to restrict access to patent protection, as was apparently typical across Europe. Conversely, the American system was an open and democratic one, intended to provide patent protection to as many sections of society as possible. This paper argues for a less stylized comparison. British courts were not so hostile to patents (and patentees) as has been commonly supposed. Neither was it so difficult to obtain patent protection: for all its faults, the evidence that the British patent system was designed to restrict access to its provisions is nugatory. Consequently, explanations for America’s technological catch-up and eventual supplantation of Britain and Europe as global technological leader cannot invoke ‘superior’ patent institutions as a contributory factor.

Stathis Arapostathis, Graeme Gooday, Patently Contestable: Electrical Technologies and Inventor Identities on Trial in Britain | Sean Bottomley, The British Patent System during the Industrial Revolution, 1700-18

Stathis Arapostathis, Graeme Gooday, Patently Contestable: Electrical Technologies and Inventor Identities on Trial in Britain | Sean Bottomley, The British Patent System during the Industrial Revolution, 1700-18

The Report of the Parker Committee on Patent Law 1916

The Report of the Parker Committee, formed in 1916 to consider potential reforms to patent law, was not published. It was concerned, in part, with the abuse of the British patent system by foreigners, proposing significant reforms to address the perceived issues. Ultimately, its proposals were the basis of the failed Patents and Designs Bill 1917. Significantly, the Committee considered issues around compulsory licences, licences of right and the patenting of medicinal products (that is, pharmaceuticals). The public records do not include a copy of the final report or all the key memoranda from which the Committee started its work. These are brought together here for the first time.

Sean Bottomley. The British Patent System during the Industrial Revolution, 1700–1852: From Privilege to Property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Pp. xi + 330. $125.00 (cloth).

Sean Bottomley. The British Patent System during the Industrial Revolution, 1700–1852: From Privilege to Property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Pp. xi + 330. $125.00 (cloth).

Inventions, Yes; Nature, No: The Products-of-Nature Doctrine From the American Colonies to the U.S. Courts

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Courts have historically held that products of nature unmodified by human action are ineligible for patents. This doctrine derived from the evolution of the British patent system during the colonial period, particularly its lingering practice of granting patents for importation; the American colonists’ resentment of monopolies and their Enlightenment commitment to both a cultural and a natural commons; their willingness in the Revolutionary era to grant the privilege of patent monopolies only so long as they were temporary and covered inventions that were truly new. The fact that natural products as such were not new made the doctrine implicitly part of American patent law in the first years of the republic, and it was made explicit during the nineteenth century through an accumulating body of court decisions.

Drug research and development in the pharmaceutical industry.

British Journal of Clinical PharmacologyVolume 22, Issue S1 p. 9S-14S Free Access Drug research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. BW Cromie, BW CromieSearch for more papers by this author BW Cromie, BW CromieSearch for more papers by this author First published: February 1986 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1986.tb02975.xCitations: 1AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (1984). UK pharmaceutical R&D expenditure ABPI Annual Report 1983–84. London: ABPI. Cromie, B. W. (1979). Present problems: the effect of British regulations. Medicine for the year 2000, eds G. Teeling-Smith & N. Wells London: Office of Health Economics. Grabowski, H. (1982). Public policy and innovation: the case of pharmaceuticals. Technovation, 1, 157– 189. HMSO (1970). The British Patent System. Report of the Committee to Examine the Patent System and Patent Law Chairman M. A. L. Banks. Cmnd. 4407 (July), 119. London: HMSO. HMSO (1983a). Scientific procedures on living animals. Cmnd 8883, (May). London: HMSO. HMSO (1983b) Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation. Cmnd. 9117, (December), 45. London: HMSO. I. M. S. Pharmaceutical Market letter (1984). Drug industry from investors' eyes. I.M.S. Pharmaceutical Marketletter, 2, 11. Lawrence, W. W. (1983). Improved science, heightened societal aspirations and the agenda for ‘risk’ decision-making. In Risk in society, ed A. J. Jouhar London: John Libbey. Office of Health Economics (1983). Worldwide introduction of N.C.E.s 1961–1980. Pharmaceutical Innovation: recent trends, future prospects. London: OHE. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (1983). Lost patent life, lost medicines and the rising cost of health care. Washington D.C.: Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. RSPCA (1984a). Notes on the Work of the RSPCA Animal Experimentation Research Department. March 1984. RSPCA (1984b) Animal experimentation RSPCA booklet, Horsham (undated but sent out August 1984). Scrip (1984). ‘Rocky road’ seen for innovators. Scrip, 925, 13. Walker, S. A. & Prentis, R. A. (1984). Drug research and pharmaceutical patents. Pharm. J., 234, 11– 13. Citing Literature Volume22, IssueS1February 1986Pages 9S-14S ReferencesRelatedInformation

The future British patent system

Major changes to the UK patent system are planned, and the necessary reform will be brought about by forthcoming Parliamentary legislation. A clear understanding of the proposed changes is important to anyone involved in advancing technologies where the protection of developments can be a vital ingredient for commercial success

The impact of European patent development

NOT MANY LIBRARIANS will be familiar with the British patent system, and even fewer with the rapidly evolving European system. This is unfortunate: the grant of letters patent, the agreement between the state and the individual, is a valuable form of negotiable industrial property, and the specification which describes the invention for which the grant was made, is a basic source of technical information.

The Joint Iron Council, 1945–1966: The Origins and History of the Council and Its Constituents, the Council of Iron Producers and the Council of Ironfoundry Associations. By Basil H. Tripp. London: Published by George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.; Humanities Press, New York, distributor, 1966. Pp. 138. $7.50. - The British Patent System: I. Administration. By Klaus Boehm in collaboration with

The Joint Iron Council, 1945–1966: The Origins and History of the Council and Its Constituents, the Council of Iron Producers and the Council of Ironfoundry Associations. By Basil H. Tripp. London: Published by George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.; Humanities Press, New York, distributor, 1966. Pp. 138. 10.50. - Volume 29 Issue 2

The British Patent System. I. Administration. By Klaus Boehm, in collaboration with Aubrey Silberston. [Cambridge: at the University Press. 1967. x, 180 and (index) 4 pp. 55s. net.

The British Patent System. I. Administration. By Klaus Boehm, in collaboration with Aubrey Silberston. [Cambridge: at the University Press. 1967. x, 180 and (index) 4 pp. 55s. net.] - Volume 27 Issue 1

Patents and the National Economy

MR. MEINHARDT'S book deals concisely with the history, practice, and possible developments of the British patent system in relation to the social and economic conditions of Britain, and may be read with advantage by anyone who desires knowledge and understanding of the subject. It appears at an opportune moment, because the British patent system has been recently under heavy fire, and will probably soon be the subject of legislation. Inventions, Patents and Monopoly. By Peter Meinhardt. Pp. xvi + 352. (London: Stevens and Sons, Ltd., 1946.) 25s. net.

Reform of the British Patent System*

THE need for various improvements in the British patent system has been constantly before the public in recent years, and it is generally agreed that the time is ripe for a general overhauling and lubrication of the machinery. The matter is important, for invention is closely, if subtly, connected with unemployment, and, moreover, it is chiefly through patent protection that workers in applied science can hope to win a share of the economic benefits which they confer on the community.

The Grant of Invalid Patents

BRITISH justice is a pearl of great price. More specifically it may be stated that in the case of patent actions in the High Court its price ranges from £600 to £1000 a day, and that such actions may last for a number of weeks. Dr. Levinstein has performed a public service in giving prominence, in his recent address to the Bristol section of the Society of Chemical Industry, to this costliness, which is a fundamental defect in the British patent system. Owing to the high cost of patent litigation, to which he referred in language warmed by bitter experience, the consideration for which patent rights may be enjoyed is nowadays not so much the introduction of a new invention as the possession of exceptional wealth. A genuine inventor cannot, unless he be supported by very large financial resources, prevent his invention from being freely copied: for his only remedy lies in an action for infringement, and this might cost him a fortune, even if he succeeded in winning it. On the other hand, a bogus invention, embodied in an invalid patent, can be used to hamper manufacturers or to extract royalties in a manner which is scarcely distinguishable from blackmail. “Thousands of unjustified monopolies are being legally granted,” says Dr. Levinstein, “and sometimes the holders threaten the very existence of those invading their privilege.”

The British Patent System

ON a number of occasions in recent years attention has been directed in these columns to the importance of the British patent system from the point of view of scientific men, and we have pointed out that the defects from which it suffers, whether in respect of law or of administrative machinery, ought to receive more serious consideration from the Government of the day than they have until recently obtained. It has therefore been particularly gratifying to note a number of indications that the importance of this branch of the public service is coming to be recognised more adequately. One of the pleasantest of these indications was the conferment, in the birthday honours list, of a knighthood on the Comptroller-General of Patents, Mr. W. S. Jarratt, whose appointment a few years ago gave much satisfaction to those who had been contending that scientific and technical qualifications were essential to the adequate discharge of the Comptroller's duties.

Reform of the British Patent System

Reform of the British Patent System

The Future of the British Patent Office

I. THE British patent system suffers from certain rather serious defects which prevent it from fulfilling adequately its function as a stimulus to in vention and as an incentive to the development of new manufactures. It is the purpose of the present article to discuss one of these defects, namely, the restricted character of the investigation for novelty which is carried out by the Patent Office, and to direct attention to the need for fresh legislation on this subject. Wide differences of opinion are likely to exist as to the form the remedy should take, since the relative cost of any schemes which may be put forward will depend on the degrees of thoroughness characterising the searches for which they respectively provide. The view here advocated is that an extremely high degree of thorough ness will repay the expenditure which it involves, but we shall have served our purpose if we succeed in directing attention to the principal questions on which a decision will have to be taken when the present state of the law comes to be amended.

The Future of the British Patent Office

THE British patent system is a matter which concerns all workers in applied science, for it represents an attempt-faulty and incomplete, but still an attempt-to secure for such workers the credit for their achievements, together with a share of the material advantages arising from these. Hence any event which seriously affects the future of the patent system is one to which the scientific world should give careful consideration, and such an event is just beginning to appear on the horizon. Lest it should take shape before its implications have been seriously canvassed, it may be well to direct attention to some of its aspects. There is a rule which requires Government servants to submit to superannuation at an age when many men are still capable of their best work, and since the rule appears to be inexorably applied, the retirement of the present Comptroller of the Patent Office and the appointment of his successor must be regarded as inevitable in the not very distant future. It is perhaps a little early to discuss this question, but not too early; for when the first official intimation of such a change is given, the selection of the successor may be actually, if not formally, a fait accompli.

British Patent Law, and Patentees' Wrongs and Rights

THERE is a feeling among most men engaged in industries that a patent is a bad security for an invention, and that the best way to reap the fruits of an improved chemical process, or of any novel industrial method, is to keep the knowledge secret. This indicates a weakness in the British patent system; and though the matter is a very difficult one to deal with satisfactorily, some change is desirable which will better protect the general public and deal with patentees more justly. Under the system at present in vogue, no examination as to novelty is made before granting the patent.