Domain Names E-CommerceLitigationIP Rights MaintenanceIP as PropertyNews & BulletinsTrademarksIntroductory MaterialsBiotechnologyComputer InventionsUS & Foreign patent Practice
Client AccessHomeAbout UsContact UsOur PeopleSearchQuick Search:
Patents / US and Foreign Patent Practice / Petty Patents / Current Situation Worldwide

The Current Situation Worldwide


Table I sets out some basic facts about secondary protection in most countries that have such laws, including indications as to how long the countries have had such laws, the name given to the protection (not all countries use the term "utility model"), the duration of protection and, as an indication of the usefulness of such protection, the number of such applications filed in 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available from WIPO. A summary of the most important features of the substantive laws in these countries is set out in Table II.

A comparison of Tables I and II shows that the countries in which the most widespread use of utility model protection is made are countries where there are significant differences between the standards of invention required for patents and utility models namely: Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan and Germany. In Germany, there are two additional differences between patents and utility models: namely, the grace period as noted above and secondly, that for utility models prior public use outside Germany does not constitute a bar to protection. As can be seen from the tables, countries where there is a lesser distinction between requirements for patent protection and for utility model protection have tended to result in few utility model applications being filed. It is, however, noticeable from the statistics compiled by WIPO, that utility models, unlike patents in most countries, are utilized more widely by local residents than by foreigners. One reason for this is that costs for utility models tend to be less than those for patent applications because in many countries (although as shown by the table not all by any means) no substantive examination is carried out for utility model applications. Dispensing with examination seems to be an increasing trend since, as noted above, Japan gave up substantive examination of utility model applications last year. This lack of examination also has the potential advantage of accelerating the grant of an enforceable intellectual property right. One consequence of a lack of examination, however, is a feeling that protection should not be granted for the full term normally granted for patents and so utility model protection is generally for a shorter period than that granted for a normal patent.

Typically, utility models differ from patents in one or more of the following respects:

l. Standard of invention required;

2. The basis on which novelty is assesse;

3. Whether examination is required (and consequent speed of grant of an enforceable right);

4. Costs; and

5. Duration of protection.

Superimposed upon this is the fact that the classes of subject matter which may be protectable by a utility model or other form of secondary of protection may in many cases be much narrower than the definition of patentable subject matter for normal patents.

Two of the advantages perceived by users of the system, namely a lower inventive height than is required for patents and the lack of examination, are regarded by its opponents as being major disadvantages of the utility model system. The argument is that these two features lead to the grant of what are essentially inchoate rights since it is difficult for competitors to determine what is or is not the subject matter of an enforceable right. This it is argued leads to uncertainty and economic inefficiency. These factors led to some interesting results in a survey carried out on behalf of European Commission in 1993 which found that on average 50% of industry in the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy and Germany were "partly to greatly dissatisfied by the application of the utility model system in Europe at present" with the satisfaction being greater amongst small and medium sized companies as compared to large companies. The causes of this dissatisfaction were not totally specified but the fact that different standards exist between various countries was clearly a contributing factor in addition to any discontent that might exist about the specific features of protection in any particular country. Thus, 76% of small or medium size companies surveyed by the Commission expressed a high interest in the adoption of a community wide utility model system whereas interest among larger companies was much smaller.

Previous Next Contents
Contact Us


[Home] [About Ladas & Parry LLP] [Contact Us] [Search]
[Trademarks] [Domain Names & E-Commerce] [Patents & Copyrights]
[Litigation] [IP Rights Maintenance] [IP as Property] [News & Bulletins]

© Copyright 2002 John Richards - Posted July 2002
Please read our disclaimer.