Policy Levers in the Patent System
By Dan Burk (Minnesota) & Mark Lemley (Berkeley)
89 Va.L.Rev. 1575 (2003)
Link to FULL TEXT of article
--Summary by Arti K. Rai
Summary
Recent work by legal scholars has noted that the Federal
Circuit tends to promulgate so-called “bright line
rules”—simple rules that can be applied without a
detailed analysis of the facts in a case—in situations where
patent law has traditionally called for a more fact-intensive and
policy-oriented analysis—interpretation of patentable
subject matter, for example, or application of the nonobviousness
patenting standard (Rai 2003, Thomas 2003). In this article,
Professors Dan Burk and Mark Lemley identify a variety of flexible
standards within the patent law that could be used by the Federal
Circuit as “policy levers” to achieve desired policy
goals of patent law. According to Burk and Lemley, these policy
levers are particularly important in calibrating the patent system
to address the differences in innovation across industries.
Burk and Lemley first identify five distinct models of
innovation in the patent law and policy literature. These models,
they argue, correspond to different industries. There is Edmund
Kitch’s prospect theory model, which considers broad patent
rights necessary for coordinating efficient innovation; Kenneth
Arrow’s competitive innovation model, which considers
competition necessary for innovation; the cumulative innovation
model, which looks at how to allocate rights between initial
inventors and improvers in cases where one innovation builds upon
a previous one; the anticommons model, which examines the problem
that large numbers of upstream rights pose for downstream
innovation; and the patent thickets model, which focuses on
similar problems. According to Burk and Lemley, the
chemical/pharmaceutical industry is best characterized by the
prospect model; business methods and the early software industry
through the competitive innovation model; the current software
industry through the cumulative innovation model; the
biotechnology industry through the anticommons model; and the
semiconductor industry through the thickets model.
Burk and Lemley reject the idea that each industry needs unique
mechanisms of protection. Rather, they suggest that courts—above
all the Federal Circuit—can address the needs of particular
industries by employing various sources of judicial discretion in
patent law. The authors argue that some of these policy levers
operate on a “macro” level—that is, they
acknowledge differences between industries. Others operate on a
“micro” level: they do not make such distinctions, but
they do tend to have disproportionate impacts in particular
industries.
Burk and Lemley identify a host of doctrines that have, at
least historically, served as policy levers within patent law. For
example, the exclusion of abstract ideas from patentability has
limited the scope of some patents. Use of the utility doctrine in
biotechnology—the requirement that in order to obtain a
patent, an invention must have a directly valuable use and not
merely be interesting for further research—has limited the
ability to patent upstream biotechnology. The authors also suggest
new doctrines that could, in the future, serve as policy levers.
For example, a fortified right to experimental use could be
particularly valuable for industries like software, where it is
difficult to design around a patented product without reproducing
the product. A new type of patentability inquiry could assess
whether innovation in a particular industry or in a particular
case was highly costly or uncertain, in which case a lower
nonobviousness standard, or perhaps a more liberal disclosure
standard, might be merited. Because reverse engineering is
important for software development, patent misuse doctrine could
be extended to bar prohibition on reverse engineering in software
patent licenses.
References
Arti K. Rai, “Engaging Facts and Policy: A
Multi-Institutional Approach to Patent System Reform,” 103
Colum.L.Rev.1035 (2003)
John Thomas, “Formalism at the Federal Circuit,” 52
Am.U.L.Rev. 771 (2003)
|