公众参与专利评审机制研究
|
摘要
专利审查的核心是对发明创造的新颖性和创造性的审查,而新颖性和创造性的判断皆以现有技术为基础。现有技术信息的存在方式和专利审查员的检索实践决定了现有技术的信息不足,而现有技术信息不足正是当前专利质量问题的症结。因此有必要研究如何解决此信息不足的问题。为了克服信息不足,有必要在专利审查中引入公众参与机制,本文就是研究公众参与专利评审的机制问题。主要工作及结论如下：
首先,本文论证了公众参与专利评审的必要性。在当前专利质量问题较多的情形下,专利申请人难以披露其已知的现有技术信息,因而难以建立有效的激励机制,即使如美国专利法课以申请人信息披露义务的强制做法,也不能提供必要的激励使申请人披露其已知的信息。现有技术检索外包因存在检索的质量问题等弊端,决定该方式也不能用来解决信息不足。而建立合适的公众参与机制如当前的公众专利评审模式能够有效地克服专利审查中现有技术信息不足。
其次,本文研究了公众专利评审的基本理论问题以及国外有关试验项目。公众参与的激励问题是当前公众专利评审面临的最主要的问题,结合有关的激励理论,分析得出激励公众参与的激励因素为：参与者的参与平台,物质奖励和诸如荣誉、成就感、责任感等高层次的需要。并对如何激励公众积极参与提出了如下激励措施：进一步优化参与的软件平台；给予适当额度的货币奖励和提供多方位的精神奖励。
最后,本文认为我国专利审查同样存在现有技术信息不足,严格审查有利于维护我国利益,我国引入公众专利评审机制是必要的且可行的,并就我国试验公众专利评审的主要方面提出了如下建议：适用的技术领域应优先考虑计算机软件,其次为商业方法,再次为生物技术领域；使用与美国相同的软件平台,充分进行各种有效地宣传和在试验中进行调查；采用优先审查的方式鼓励申请人提交申请用于试验,给予成功参与的评审者奖金和多种精神奖励以激励公众的积极参与。
The core of patent examination is to review the novelty and creativity of inventions and prior art is the basis for comparison with the novelty and creativity. The presence of prior art information and practice of retrieval methods of patent examiners determined the lack of available prior art information and the information deficit of prior art is crux of the currently problem of patent quality. Therefore, it is necessary to study how to solve the problem of insufficient information on prior art. To overcome the lack of information, it is necessary to introduce public participation in patent examination system. This paper is a study of the mechanism of public participation in the patent review. Major work and conclusions in the paper are as follows:
First of all, this paper demonstrates the need for public participation in the patent review. In the current case of the more patent quality problematic, patent applicants do not want to disclose their known prior art information, which making it difficult to establish an effective incentive mechanism. Even the practice of compulsory such as disclosure obligations of the applicant's in U.S. patent law, can not provide the necessary incentives to enable the applicant to disclose known information. Due to search quality and other shortcomings, outsourcing search of prior art the same can not solve the problem of insufficient information. This paper considers the establishment of appropriate mechanisms for public participation, such as the current model of community patent review is the more effective solution of the current information deficit of prior art.
Secondly, this paper studies the basic theory of community patent review and assessment of the pilot projects abroad. The paper presents how to motivate the public participation in the patent review is the most important issue in the current community patent review. Combining with the motivation theory, the paper analysis that the incentive which encourage public participation are:platform for participants to participate, material reward and the need for high-level such as honor, achievement, responsibility. On how to encourage active public participation, the article also presents the following incentives:to further optimize the software platform of participation, to provide appropriate amount of monetary reward and multi-faceted spiritual rewards.
Finally, the paper also found that the existence of insufficient information of prior art in Chinese patent examination and critical review is conducive to safeguarding the interests of our country. Thesis that the introduction of the mechanism of community patent review is necessary and feasible for China.Regarding major aspects of community patent review, the article put forward the following recommendations:priority for computer software, followed by the business method and finally, the field of biotechnology for the pilot project; using the same software platform which adopted by the United States; full information and a variety of effective investigations in the pilot project; by the way of priority review to encourage applicants to submit applications for pilot and providing bonuses and a variety of spirit incentives to successful participation to encourage active public participation.
首先,本文论证了公众参与专利评审的必要性。在当前专利质量问题较多的情形下,专利申请人难以披露其已知的现有技术信息,因而难以建立有效的激励机制,即使如美国专利法课以申请人信息披露义务的强制做法,也不能提供必要的激励使申请人披露其已知的信息。现有技术检索外包因存在检索的质量问题等弊端,决定该方式也不能用来解决信息不足。而建立合适的公众参与机制如当前的公众专利评审模式能够有效地克服专利审查中现有技术信息不足。
其次,本文研究了公众专利评审的基本理论问题以及国外有关试验项目。公众参与的激励问题是当前公众专利评审面临的最主要的问题,结合有关的激励理论,分析得出激励公众参与的激励因素为：参与者的参与平台,物质奖励和诸如荣誉、成就感、责任感等高层次的需要。并对如何激励公众积极参与提出了如下激励措施：进一步优化参与的软件平台；给予适当额度的货币奖励和提供多方位的精神奖励。
最后,本文认为我国专利审查同样存在现有技术信息不足,严格审查有利于维护我国利益,我国引入公众专利评审机制是必要的且可行的,并就我国试验公众专利评审的主要方面提出了如下建议：适用的技术领域应优先考虑计算机软件,其次为商业方法,再次为生物技术领域；使用与美国相同的软件平台,充分进行各种有效地宣传和在试验中进行调查；采用优先审查的方式鼓励申请人提交申请用于试验,给予成功参与的评审者奖金和多种精神奖励以激励公众的积极参与。
The core of patent examination is to review the novelty and creativity of inventions and prior art is the basis for comparison with the novelty and creativity. The presence of prior art information and practice of retrieval methods of patent examiners determined the lack of available prior art information and the information deficit of prior art is crux of the currently problem of patent quality. Therefore, it is necessary to study how to solve the problem of insufficient information on prior art. To overcome the lack of information, it is necessary to introduce public participation in patent examination system. This paper is a study of the mechanism of public participation in the patent review. Major work and conclusions in the paper are as follows:
First of all, this paper demonstrates the need for public participation in the patent review. In the current case of the more patent quality problematic, patent applicants do not want to disclose their known prior art information, which making it difficult to establish an effective incentive mechanism. Even the practice of compulsory such as disclosure obligations of the applicant's in U.S. patent law, can not provide the necessary incentives to enable the applicant to disclose known information. Due to search quality and other shortcomings, outsourcing search of prior art the same can not solve the problem of insufficient information. This paper considers the establishment of appropriate mechanisms for public participation, such as the current model of community patent review is the more effective solution of the current information deficit of prior art.
Secondly, this paper studies the basic theory of community patent review and assessment of the pilot projects abroad. The paper presents how to motivate the public participation in the patent review is the most important issue in the current community patent review. Combining with the motivation theory, the paper analysis that the incentive which encourage public participation are:platform for participants to participate, material reward and the need for high-level such as honor, achievement, responsibility. On how to encourage active public participation, the article also presents the following incentives:to further optimize the software platform of participation, to provide appropriate amount of monetary reward and multi-faceted spiritual rewards.
Finally, the paper also found that the existence of insufficient information of prior art in Chinese patent examination and critical review is conducive to safeguarding the interests of our country. Thesis that the introduction of the mechanism of community patent review is necessary and feasible for China.Regarding major aspects of community patent review, the article put forward the following recommendations:priority for computer software, followed by the business method and finally, the field of biotechnology for the pilot project; using the same software platform which adopted by the United States; full information and a variety of effective investigations in the pilot project; by the way of priority review to encourage applicants to submit applications for pilot and providing bonuses and a variety of spirit incentives to successful participation to encourage active public participation.
引文
[1]Alcacer, J., Gittelman, M. Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows:The Infuence of Examiner Citations, Review of Economic Studies,2006,88(4):774-779
[2]Allison, J.R., Lemley, M. A. Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, AIPLA Q.J.1998,26:185-205
[3]Allison, J.R., Lemley, M.A. The Growing Complexity of the United States Patent System, B.U. L. Rev.2002,82:77-135
[4]Allison, J.R., On the Feasibility of Improving Patent Quality One Technology at a Time:The Case of Business Methods, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2006,21:729-794
[5]Beard, J.W. A Better Carrot-Incentivizing Patent Reexamination, Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal,2009,1(2):168-200
[6]Benjamin, S.M. Who's Afraid of the APA? What the Patent System Can Learn from Administrative Law, Georgetown Law Journal,2007,95:269-330
[7]Bessen, J., Meurer, M.J. Patent Failure:How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton:Princeton University Press,2008
[8]Bestor, D.R., Hamp, E. Peer to Patent:A Cure for Our Ailing Patent Examination System, Nw. J. Tech.& Intell.2010,9(2):16-32
[9]Bicknell, G. M. To Disclose or Not to Disclose:Duty of Candor Obligations of the United States and Foreign Patent Offices, Chi. Kent L. Rev.2008,183(1):525-471
[10]Buchanan, J.M. Deference Overcome:Courts' Invalidation of Patent Claims as Anticipated by Art Considered by the PTO, Stan. Tech. L. Rev.2006,2:1-30
[11]Cage, K.L., Cullen, L.T. An Overview of Inter Partes Reexamination Procedures, J. Pat.& Trademark Off. Soc'y 2003,85:931-982
[12]Chen, E.B. Applying the Lessons of Re-Examination to Strengthen Patent Post-Grant Opposition, Computer Law Review and Technology Journal,2006, X:193-206
[13]Chiou, J.Y. The Patent Quality Control Process:Can We Afford An (Rationally) Ignorant Patent Office? CLEA 2008 Meetings Paper. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1099948
[14]Chisum, D.S. Patent Law and the Presumption of Moral Regularity:A Critical Review of Recent Federal Circuit Decisions on Inequitable Conduct and Willful Infringement, J. Pat.& Trademark Off. Soc'y 1987,69(1):27-46
[15]Cotropia, C.A. Modernizing Patent Law's Inequitable Conduct Doctrine, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2009,24(1):1-58
[16]Cotropia, C.A. Recent Developments in the Inequitable Conduct Doctrine and Their Impact on Patent Quality, IPO Annual Meeting,2007
[17]Crampes, C., Langinier, C. Litigation and Settlement in Patent Infringement Cases, Rand Journal of Economics,2002,33:228-274
[18]Dent, C. Decision-Making and Quality in the Patent Examination Process:An Australian Exploration, No.01.06 Victoria:Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia,2006
[19]Dreyfuss, R. Pathological Patenting:The PTO as Cause or Cure? Michigan Law Review,2005,104:1559-1578
[20]Duane, M.J. Lending a Hand:The Need for Public Participation in Patent Examination and Beyond, Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property,2008, 7:57-74
[21]EPO, European Patent Office annual reports for the following years:Annual report 2007. Available at:http://www.epo.org/about-us/.../general.../annual-reports.html
[22]Federal Trade Commission, To Promote Innovation:The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy, Washington, D.C. Federal Trade Commission,2003
[23]Fitzgerald, B., McEniery, B., Ti, J. Peer-to-Patent Australia 1st Anniversary Report, December 2010. Available at: http://www.peertopatent.org.au/P2PAU_1st_Anniversary_Report.pdf
[24]Full Calendar Year 2009 Report, Patstats. org,2009. Available at: http://www.patstats.org/2009_full_year_posting.htm
[25]Ghosh, S., Kesan, J. What Do Patents Purchase? In Search of Optimal Ignorance in the Patent Office, Houston Law Review,2004,40:1219-1264
[26]Graf, S.W. Improving Patent Quality through Identification of Relevant Prior Art: Approaches to Increase Information Flow to the Patent Office, Lewis & Clark L. Rev.2007,11:495-519
[27]Graham, S.J.H., Hall, B.H., Harhoff, D., Mowery, D.C. Patent Quality Control:A Comparison of U.S. Patent Reexaminations and European Patent Oppositions, Working Paper,2002.Available at: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/～bhhall/papers/GHHM%20Nov02.pdf
[28]Hall, B.H., Harhoff, D. Post-grant Reviews in the U.S. Patent System-design Choices and Expected Impact, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2004,19(1):21-27
[29]Harvey, D. Reinventing the U.S. Patent System:A Discussion of Patent Reform Through an Analysis of the Proposed Patent Reform Act of 2005, Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 2006,38:1133-1168
[30]Henry, C. Inequitable Conduct Inequitably Inferred:When Do Patent Applicants' Actions Intend to Deceive? Wash.& Lee L. Rev.2008,65:1159-1191
[31]Ishihara, T. Community Patent Review, IIP Bulletin 2009. Available at: http://www.iip.or.jp/e/e_summary/pdf/detail2008/e20_01.pdf
[32]Janis, M.D. Inter Partes Patent Reexamination, Fordham Intell. Prop., Media & Ent. L.J.2000:481-499
[33]Jeffrey, J.A. Preserving the Presumption of Patent Validity:An Alternative to Outsourcing the U.S. Patent Examiner's Prior Art Search, Cath. U. L. Rev.2003, 52:761-785
[34]Kao, A.S. Peer Review of Patents:Can the Public Make the Patent System Better? Journal of Law, Technology & Policy,2007,2:101-109
[35]Katsh, E., Noveck, B.S. Peer to Peer Meets the World of Legal Information: Encountering a New Paradigm, Law Library Journal,2006,99 (2):365-376
[36]Kesan, J.P., Carrots and Sticks to Create a Better Patent System, Berkeley Tech. L. J. 2002,17:145-179
[37]Kesan, J.P., Gallo, A.A. Why "Bad" Patents Survive in the Market and How Should We Change?-The Private and Social Costs of Patents, Emory L.J.2006,55:61-140
[38]Kunin, S.G., Fetting, A.W. The Metamorphosis of Inter Partes Reexamination, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2004,19:971-988
[39]Lambert, N. Bounty Quest Introduces New Service to Help Strengthen U.S. Patent System, Nfo. Today Newsbreaks, Oct.30,2000. Available at: http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/InbReader.asp?ArticleId=17719
[40]Lampe, R. Strategic Citation, Working Paper,2008.Available at: http://www.stanford.edu/-rlampe/ryan_lampejmp.pdf
[41]Langinier, C., Marcoul, P. Patents, Search of Prior Art and Revelation of Information, Working Papers,2007. Available at: http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_10489.pdf
[42]Langinier, C. Search of Prior Art and Revelation of Information by Patent Applicants, Working Papers,2009.Available at: http://www.ualberta.ca/-langinie/papers/PA09.pdf
[43]Lemley, M.A. Ignoring Patents, Michigan State Law Review,2008,19:19-34
[44]Lemley, M.A. Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, N W. U. L. Rev.2001, 95(4):1495-1530
[45]Lichtman, D., Lemley, M.A. Rethinking Patent Law's Presumption of Validity, Stan. L.Rev.2007,60(1):45-72
[46]Loiselle, J., Lynch, M., Sherrerd, M. Evaluation of the Peer to Patent Pilot Program, 2010. Available at: http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-122109-150816/unrestricted /usptofinalreport.pdf
[47]Mack, K. Reforming Inequitable Conduct to Improve Patent Quality:Cleansing Unclean Hands, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2006,21(1):147-170
[48]Mammen, C.E. Controlling the "LAGUE":Reforming the Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2009,24(4):1330-1399
[49]Mann, R. Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry, Tex. L. Rev. 2005,83:961-1023
[50]Merges, R. As Many as Six Impossible Patents before Breakfast:Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform, Berkeley Tech. L.J.1999, 14:577-589
[51]Merrill, S.A., Levin, R.C., Myers, M.B. A Patent System for the 21st Century, Washington, D.C. National Research Council,2004
[52]Miller, J.S. Building a Better Bounty:Litigation-Stage Rewards for Defeating Patents, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2004,19:667-705
[53]Monica, A., De La Paz. Inequitable Conduct:Overview and Current Concepts, Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal,2010,22(2):12-25
[54]Mossinghoff, G.J., Kuo, V.S. Post-Grant Review of Patents:Enhancing the Quality of the Fuel of Interest,IDEA,2002,43:83-90
[55]National Academy of Public Administration, US Patent and Trademark Office: Transforming to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century, Washington, DC,2005
[56]Noveck, B.S. "Peer to Patent":Collective Intelligence, Open Review, and Patent Reform, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology,2006,20(1):123-162
[57]Osenga, K.J. Rethinking Reexamination Reform:Is It Time for Corrective Surgery, or Is It Time to Amputate? Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J.2003, 14:217-243
[58]Osenga, K., Ramps, E. Tolls, and Express Lanes:A Proposals for Decreasing Patent Congestion in the Patent Office, F la. St. U. L. Rev.2005,33:119-148
[59]Peters, E. Are We Living in a Material World?:An Analysis of the Federal Circuit's Materiality Standard Under the Patent Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct, Iowa Law Review,2008,93:1519-1564
[60]Petherbridge, L. Positive Examination, the Intellectual Property Law Review,2006, 46(2):173-220
[61]Sampat, B.N. Determinants of Patent Quality:An Empirical Analysis, Sept.3,2005. Available at: http://www-siepr.stanford.edu/programs/SST_Seminars/patentquality_new.pdf_1.pdf
[62]Sampat, B.N. Examining Patent Examination:An Analysis of Examiner and Applican Generated Prior Art,2004. Available at: http://www.stiy.com/MeasuringInnovation/Sampat.pdf
[63]Sampat, B.N. When Do Applicants Search for Prior Art? Journal of Law and Economics,2010,53(2):399-416
[64]Schecter, M.W. Open Collaboration is Medicine for Our Ailing Patent System, BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal,2006,72:682-685
[65]Shapiro, R. J., Mathur, A. The Economic Implications of Patent Reform:The Deficiencies and Costs of Proposals Regarding the Apportionment of Damages, Post-Grant Opposition, and Inequitable Conduct. Executive Summary, S 0 N E C 0 N February 2008
[66]Singleton, S. Improving Patent Quality:Inside Out, Outside In, or Upside Down? Periodic Commentaries on the Policy Debate,2005:1-7
[67]The Federal Trade Commission, To Promote Innovation:The Proper Balanceof Competition and Patent Law and policy, Report,2003. Available at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/10/cpreport.htm
[68]The Staff Union of the European Patent Office, A Quality Strategy for the EPO, Working Paper,2002.Available at: http://www.suepo.org/public/quality_quantity/quality2002.pdf
[69]Thomas, J.R. Collusion and Collective Action in the Patent System:A Proposal for Patent Bounties, U.I11.L. Rev.2001,2001(1):305-353
[70]Thomas, J.R. The Responsibility of the Rule-maker:Comparative Approaches to Patent Administration Reform, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2002,17:727-761
[71]U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, The 21st Century Strategic Plan:Certification of Searching Authorities, February 3,2003. Available at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/strat21/action/q8p07_01.htm
[72]U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, USPTO Contracts International Patent Application Searches to Commercial Firms, Sept.21,2005.Available at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/05-48.htm
[73]United States Congress, Patent Reform Act of 2007, Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Reform_Act_of_2007
[74]Vanderheyden, P. J. Identifying Prior Art, Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review, 2008:37-38
[75]Wagner, R.P. Understanding Patent-Quality Mechanisms, University of Pennsylvania Law Review,2009,157:2135-2173
[76]Wasserman, M.F. Limiting the Inequitable Conduct Defense, Virginia Journal of Law & Technology,2008,13(7):1-26
[77]Whealan, J. Validity Challenges in Re-examination Proceedings,7 Casrip Publication Series, Reconciling International Intellectual Property 42,July 2002. Available at: http://www.law.washington.edu/casrip/Symposium/Number7/2A-Whealan.pdf
[78]Wong, C., Kreps, J. Collaborative approach:Peer to Patent and the Open Source movement, International Free and Open Source Software Law Review,2009,1(1): 15-26
[79]Wong, C.Peer to Patent Community Patent Review,2006. Available at http://www.peertopatent.org/main/education
[80]Zandy, K.M. Too Much, too Little, or just Right? A Goldilocks Approach to Patent Reexamination Reform, NYU Annual Survey of American Law,2006,61:865-906
[81]程良友,汤珊芬.美国提高专利质量的对策及对我国的启示.科技与经济,2007(3)：48-50
[82]程良友,汤珊芬.我国专利质量现状、成因及对策探讨.科技与经济,2006(6)：37-40
[83]程良友.我国专利质量分析与研究.2006年华中科技大学硕士学位论文.
[84][法]让-雅克.拉丰著,激励理论.北京：北京大学出版社,2002
[85]郭林将,沈海风.论我国商业方法软件的专利保护——以审查程序完善为视角.当代经济,2009(1)：52-53
[86]胡允银.“公众专利评审”：网络时代的美国专利审查改革.中国科技论坛,2009(2)：130-133
[87]江宏庆,张希华,南雁.垃圾专利问题的一些思考.科技信息,2007(25)：3-4
[88]李立.“问题专利”不等于“垃圾专利”.法制日报,2005-12-28
[89]刘珊,余翔.中国软件产业专利申请实证研究.科技进步与对策,2009(22)：42-45
[90]刘银良.美国商业方法专利的十年扩张与轮回：从道富案到Bilski案的历史考察.知识产权,2010(6)：89-100
[91][美]杰夫·豪著.众包：大众力量缘何推动商业未来.牛文静译.北京：中信出版社,2009
[92]梅夏英.财产权构造的基础分析.北京：人民法院出版社,2002
[93][美]亚当·杰夫,乔希·勒纳.创新及其不满：专利体系对创新与进步的危害及 对策.罗建平,兰花译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007
[94]欧洲专利局.未来知识产权制度的愿景.郭民生等译,北京：知识产权出版社,2008
[95]孙国瑞.专利法修订有助于提高专利质量.中国发明与专利,2007(2)：28-29
[96]王立志.从问题专利探讨保护和反垄断的适度平衡.未来与发展,2008(1)；69-72
[97]魏衍亮.垃圾专利问题与防御垃圾专利的对策.电子知识产权,2007(12)：59-61
[98]文家春.政府资助专利费用引发垃圾专利的成因与对策.电子知识产权,2008(4)：25-28
[99]吴红.专利工作应由追求数量向调整结构和提高质量转变.科技管理研究,2006(2)：21-27
[100]徐棣枫.问题专利探析.东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007(9)：54-59
[101]俞文钊.现代激励理论与应用.大连：东北财经大学出版社,2006
[102]袁真富.中国专利竞赛：理性指引与策略调整——我国专利申请总量突破300万后的沉思.电子知识产权,2006(11)：20-36
[103]谭毅.我国商业方法专利申请状况及分析(上).知识产权报,2009-1-23
[104]张宝瑜,邓仪友.美国专利商标局公众专利评议计划评介.电子知识产权,2008(12)：40-42
[105]赵启杉.美国专利政策新动向——美国联邦贸易委员会“促进创新’报告介评.知识产权,2004(6)：51-56
[106]朱理.滥用问题专利的司法规制.电子知识产权,2008(11)：35-39
[2]Allison, J.R., Lemley, M. A. Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, AIPLA Q.J.1998,26:185-205
[3]Allison, J.R., Lemley, M.A. The Growing Complexity of the United States Patent System, B.U. L. Rev.2002,82:77-135
[4]Allison, J.R., On the Feasibility of Improving Patent Quality One Technology at a Time:The Case of Business Methods, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2006,21:729-794
[5]Beard, J.W. A Better Carrot-Incentivizing Patent Reexamination, Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal,2009,1(2):168-200
[6]Benjamin, S.M. Who's Afraid of the APA? What the Patent System Can Learn from Administrative Law, Georgetown Law Journal,2007,95:269-330
[7]Bessen, J., Meurer, M.J. Patent Failure:How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton:Princeton University Press,2008
[8]Bestor, D.R., Hamp, E. Peer to Patent:A Cure for Our Ailing Patent Examination System, Nw. J. Tech.& Intell.2010,9(2):16-32
[9]Bicknell, G. M. To Disclose or Not to Disclose:Duty of Candor Obligations of the United States and Foreign Patent Offices, Chi. Kent L. Rev.2008,183(1):525-471
[10]Buchanan, J.M. Deference Overcome:Courts' Invalidation of Patent Claims as Anticipated by Art Considered by the PTO, Stan. Tech. L. Rev.2006,2:1-30
[11]Cage, K.L., Cullen, L.T. An Overview of Inter Partes Reexamination Procedures, J. Pat.& Trademark Off. Soc'y 2003,85:931-982
[12]Chen, E.B. Applying the Lessons of Re-Examination to Strengthen Patent Post-Grant Opposition, Computer Law Review and Technology Journal,2006, X:193-206
[13]Chiou, J.Y. The Patent Quality Control Process:Can We Afford An (Rationally) Ignorant Patent Office? CLEA 2008 Meetings Paper. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1099948
[14]Chisum, D.S. Patent Law and the Presumption of Moral Regularity:A Critical Review of Recent Federal Circuit Decisions on Inequitable Conduct and Willful Infringement, J. Pat.& Trademark Off. Soc'y 1987,69(1):27-46
[15]Cotropia, C.A. Modernizing Patent Law's Inequitable Conduct Doctrine, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2009,24(1):1-58
[16]Cotropia, C.A. Recent Developments in the Inequitable Conduct Doctrine and Their Impact on Patent Quality, IPO Annual Meeting,2007
[17]Crampes, C., Langinier, C. Litigation and Settlement in Patent Infringement Cases, Rand Journal of Economics,2002,33:228-274
[18]Dent, C. Decision-Making and Quality in the Patent Examination Process:An Australian Exploration, No.01.06 Victoria:Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia,2006
[19]Dreyfuss, R. Pathological Patenting:The PTO as Cause or Cure? Michigan Law Review,2005,104:1559-1578
[20]Duane, M.J. Lending a Hand:The Need for Public Participation in Patent Examination and Beyond, Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property,2008, 7:57-74
[21]EPO, European Patent Office annual reports for the following years:Annual report 2007. Available at:http://www.epo.org/about-us/.../general.../annual-reports.html
[22]Federal Trade Commission, To Promote Innovation:The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy, Washington, D.C. Federal Trade Commission,2003
[23]Fitzgerald, B., McEniery, B., Ti, J. Peer-to-Patent Australia 1st Anniversary Report, December 2010. Available at: http://www.peertopatent.org.au/P2PAU_1st_Anniversary_Report.pdf
[24]Full Calendar Year 2009 Report, Patstats. org,2009. Available at: http://www.patstats.org/2009_full_year_posting.htm
[25]Ghosh, S., Kesan, J. What Do Patents Purchase? In Search of Optimal Ignorance in the Patent Office, Houston Law Review,2004,40:1219-1264
[26]Graf, S.W. Improving Patent Quality through Identification of Relevant Prior Art: Approaches to Increase Information Flow to the Patent Office, Lewis & Clark L. Rev.2007,11:495-519
[27]Graham, S.J.H., Hall, B.H., Harhoff, D., Mowery, D.C. Patent Quality Control:A Comparison of U.S. Patent Reexaminations and European Patent Oppositions, Working Paper,2002.Available at: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/～bhhall/papers/GHHM%20Nov02.pdf
[28]Hall, B.H., Harhoff, D. Post-grant Reviews in the U.S. Patent System-design Choices and Expected Impact, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2004,19(1):21-27
[29]Harvey, D. Reinventing the U.S. Patent System:A Discussion of Patent Reform Through an Analysis of the Proposed Patent Reform Act of 2005, Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 2006,38:1133-1168
[30]Henry, C. Inequitable Conduct Inequitably Inferred:When Do Patent Applicants' Actions Intend to Deceive? Wash.& Lee L. Rev.2008,65:1159-1191
[31]Ishihara, T. Community Patent Review, IIP Bulletin 2009. Available at: http://www.iip.or.jp/e/e_summary/pdf/detail2008/e20_01.pdf
[32]Janis, M.D. Inter Partes Patent Reexamination, Fordham Intell. Prop., Media & Ent. L.J.2000:481-499
[33]Jeffrey, J.A. Preserving the Presumption of Patent Validity:An Alternative to Outsourcing the U.S. Patent Examiner's Prior Art Search, Cath. U. L. Rev.2003, 52:761-785
[34]Kao, A.S. Peer Review of Patents:Can the Public Make the Patent System Better? Journal of Law, Technology & Policy,2007,2:101-109
[35]Katsh, E., Noveck, B.S. Peer to Peer Meets the World of Legal Information: Encountering a New Paradigm, Law Library Journal,2006,99 (2):365-376
[36]Kesan, J.P., Carrots and Sticks to Create a Better Patent System, Berkeley Tech. L. J. 2002,17:145-179
[37]Kesan, J.P., Gallo, A.A. Why "Bad" Patents Survive in the Market and How Should We Change?-The Private and Social Costs of Patents, Emory L.J.2006,55:61-140
[38]Kunin, S.G., Fetting, A.W. The Metamorphosis of Inter Partes Reexamination, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2004,19:971-988
[39]Lambert, N. Bounty Quest Introduces New Service to Help Strengthen U.S. Patent System, Nfo. Today Newsbreaks, Oct.30,2000. Available at: http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/InbReader.asp?ArticleId=17719
[40]Lampe, R. Strategic Citation, Working Paper,2008.Available at: http://www.stanford.edu/-rlampe/ryan_lampejmp.pdf
[41]Langinier, C., Marcoul, P. Patents, Search of Prior Art and Revelation of Information, Working Papers,2007. Available at: http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_10489.pdf
[42]Langinier, C. Search of Prior Art and Revelation of Information by Patent Applicants, Working Papers,2009.Available at: http://www.ualberta.ca/-langinie/papers/PA09.pdf
[43]Lemley, M.A. Ignoring Patents, Michigan State Law Review,2008,19:19-34
[44]Lemley, M.A. Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, N W. U. L. Rev.2001, 95(4):1495-1530
[45]Lichtman, D., Lemley, M.A. Rethinking Patent Law's Presumption of Validity, Stan. L.Rev.2007,60(1):45-72
[46]Loiselle, J., Lynch, M., Sherrerd, M. Evaluation of the Peer to Patent Pilot Program, 2010. Available at: http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-122109-150816/unrestricted /usptofinalreport.pdf
[47]Mack, K. Reforming Inequitable Conduct to Improve Patent Quality:Cleansing Unclean Hands, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2006,21(1):147-170
[48]Mammen, C.E. Controlling the "LAGUE":Reforming the Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2009,24(4):1330-1399
[49]Mann, R. Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry, Tex. L. Rev. 2005,83:961-1023
[50]Merges, R. As Many as Six Impossible Patents before Breakfast:Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform, Berkeley Tech. L.J.1999, 14:577-589
[51]Merrill, S.A., Levin, R.C., Myers, M.B. A Patent System for the 21st Century, Washington, D.C. National Research Council,2004
[52]Miller, J.S. Building a Better Bounty:Litigation-Stage Rewards for Defeating Patents, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2004,19:667-705
[53]Monica, A., De La Paz. Inequitable Conduct:Overview and Current Concepts, Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal,2010,22(2):12-25
[54]Mossinghoff, G.J., Kuo, V.S. Post-Grant Review of Patents:Enhancing the Quality of the Fuel of Interest,IDEA,2002,43:83-90
[55]National Academy of Public Administration, US Patent and Trademark Office: Transforming to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century, Washington, DC,2005
[56]Noveck, B.S. "Peer to Patent":Collective Intelligence, Open Review, and Patent Reform, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology,2006,20(1):123-162
[57]Osenga, K.J. Rethinking Reexamination Reform:Is It Time for Corrective Surgery, or Is It Time to Amputate? Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J.2003, 14:217-243
[58]Osenga, K., Ramps, E. Tolls, and Express Lanes:A Proposals for Decreasing Patent Congestion in the Patent Office, F la. St. U. L. Rev.2005,33:119-148
[59]Peters, E. Are We Living in a Material World?:An Analysis of the Federal Circuit's Materiality Standard Under the Patent Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct, Iowa Law Review,2008,93:1519-1564
[60]Petherbridge, L. Positive Examination, the Intellectual Property Law Review,2006, 46(2):173-220
[61]Sampat, B.N. Determinants of Patent Quality:An Empirical Analysis, Sept.3,2005. Available at: http://www-siepr.stanford.edu/programs/SST_Seminars/patentquality_new.pdf_1.pdf
[62]Sampat, B.N. Examining Patent Examination:An Analysis of Examiner and Applican Generated Prior Art,2004. Available at: http://www.stiy.com/MeasuringInnovation/Sampat.pdf
[63]Sampat, B.N. When Do Applicants Search for Prior Art? Journal of Law and Economics,2010,53(2):399-416
[64]Schecter, M.W. Open Collaboration is Medicine for Our Ailing Patent System, BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal,2006,72:682-685
[65]Shapiro, R. J., Mathur, A. The Economic Implications of Patent Reform:The Deficiencies and Costs of Proposals Regarding the Apportionment of Damages, Post-Grant Opposition, and Inequitable Conduct. Executive Summary, S 0 N E C 0 N February 2008
[66]Singleton, S. Improving Patent Quality:Inside Out, Outside In, or Upside Down? Periodic Commentaries on the Policy Debate,2005:1-7
[67]The Federal Trade Commission, To Promote Innovation:The Proper Balanceof Competition and Patent Law and policy, Report,2003. Available at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/10/cpreport.htm
[68]The Staff Union of the European Patent Office, A Quality Strategy for the EPO, Working Paper,2002.Available at: http://www.suepo.org/public/quality_quantity/quality2002.pdf
[69]Thomas, J.R. Collusion and Collective Action in the Patent System:A Proposal for Patent Bounties, U.I11.L. Rev.2001,2001(1):305-353
[70]Thomas, J.R. The Responsibility of the Rule-maker:Comparative Approaches to Patent Administration Reform, Berkeley Tech. L.J.2002,17:727-761
[71]U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, The 21st Century Strategic Plan:Certification of Searching Authorities, February 3,2003. Available at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/strat21/action/q8p07_01.htm
[72]U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, USPTO Contracts International Patent Application Searches to Commercial Firms, Sept.21,2005.Available at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/05-48.htm
[73]United States Congress, Patent Reform Act of 2007, Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Reform_Act_of_2007
[74]Vanderheyden, P. J. Identifying Prior Art, Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review, 2008:37-38
[75]Wagner, R.P. Understanding Patent-Quality Mechanisms, University of Pennsylvania Law Review,2009,157:2135-2173
[76]Wasserman, M.F. Limiting the Inequitable Conduct Defense, Virginia Journal of Law & Technology,2008,13(7):1-26
[77]Whealan, J. Validity Challenges in Re-examination Proceedings,7 Casrip Publication Series, Reconciling International Intellectual Property 42,July 2002. Available at: http://www.law.washington.edu/casrip/Symposium/Number7/2A-Whealan.pdf
[78]Wong, C., Kreps, J. Collaborative approach:Peer to Patent and the Open Source movement, International Free and Open Source Software Law Review,2009,1(1): 15-26
[79]Wong, C.Peer to Patent Community Patent Review,2006. Available at http://www.peertopatent.org/main/education
[80]Zandy, K.M. Too Much, too Little, or just Right? A Goldilocks Approach to Patent Reexamination Reform, NYU Annual Survey of American Law,2006,61:865-906
[81]程良友,汤珊芬.美国提高专利质量的对策及对我国的启示.科技与经济,2007(3)：48-50
[82]程良友,汤珊芬.我国专利质量现状、成因及对策探讨.科技与经济,2006(6)：37-40
[83]程良友.我国专利质量分析与研究.2006年华中科技大学硕士学位论文.
[84][法]让-雅克.拉丰著,激励理论.北京：北京大学出版社,2002
[85]郭林将,沈海风.论我国商业方法软件的专利保护——以审查程序完善为视角.当代经济,2009(1)：52-53
[86]胡允银.“公众专利评审”：网络时代的美国专利审查改革.中国科技论坛,2009(2)：130-133
[87]江宏庆,张希华,南雁.垃圾专利问题的一些思考.科技信息,2007(25)：3-4
[88]李立.“问题专利”不等于“垃圾专利”.法制日报,2005-12-28
[89]刘珊,余翔.中国软件产业专利申请实证研究.科技进步与对策,2009(22)：42-45
[90]刘银良.美国商业方法专利的十年扩张与轮回：从道富案到Bilski案的历史考察.知识产权,2010(6)：89-100
[91][美]杰夫·豪著.众包：大众力量缘何推动商业未来.牛文静译.北京：中信出版社,2009
[92]梅夏英.财产权构造的基础分析.北京：人民法院出版社,2002
[93][美]亚当·杰夫,乔希·勒纳.创新及其不满：专利体系对创新与进步的危害及 对策.罗建平,兰花译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007
[94]欧洲专利局.未来知识产权制度的愿景.郭民生等译,北京：知识产权出版社,2008
[95]孙国瑞.专利法修订有助于提高专利质量.中国发明与专利,2007(2)：28-29
[96]王立志.从问题专利探讨保护和反垄断的适度平衡.未来与发展,2008(1)；69-72
[97]魏衍亮.垃圾专利问题与防御垃圾专利的对策.电子知识产权,2007(12)：59-61
[98]文家春.政府资助专利费用引发垃圾专利的成因与对策.电子知识产权,2008(4)：25-28
[99]吴红.专利工作应由追求数量向调整结构和提高质量转变.科技管理研究,2006(2)：21-27
[100]徐棣枫.问题专利探析.东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007(9)：54-59
[101]俞文钊.现代激励理论与应用.大连：东北财经大学出版社,2006
[102]袁真富.中国专利竞赛：理性指引与策略调整——我国专利申请总量突破300万后的沉思.电子知识产权,2006(11)：20-36
[103]谭毅.我国商业方法专利申请状况及分析(上).知识产权报,2009-1-23
[104]张宝瑜,邓仪友.美国专利商标局公众专利评议计划评介.电子知识产权,2008(12)：40-42
[105]赵启杉.美国专利政策新动向——美国联邦贸易委员会“促进创新’报告介评.知识产权,2004(6)：51-56
[106]朱理.滥用问题专利的司法规制.电子知识产权,2008(11)：35-39