| Title | Expedited patent examination for green inventions: Developing countries' policy choices |
|---|---|
| ID_Doc | 35780 |
| Authors | Lu, BB |
| Title | Expedited patent examination for green inventions: Developing countries' policy choices |
| Year | 2013 |
| Published | |
| Abstract | Innovation in green technology is important. Patent rights can provide incentives for green technology research and development. Expedited patent examination for green inventions has emerged as a policy instrument to provide such incentives. Developing countries were never opposed to patents for green technologies. China and Brazil have led the way by offering expedited examinations for green patent applications. More developing countries are expected to follow. Expedited examination for green technologies is consistent with the intellectual property system objectives and is justified by the clear social benefit from green technologies. Introducing such expedited programs in developing countries has sufficient advantages. Existing models of expedited programs for green technologies are analyzed to generalize key issues and to discern suitable policy choices for developing countries. When introducing such programs, a balanced definition for green technology is preferred; a special classification requirement is premature and is not recommended; a pre-examination search requirement is generally recommended to balance patent office workloads, and a green patent database is recommended. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. |
Similar Articles
| ID | Score | Article |
|---|---|---|
31301
|
Perot, E Technology transfer, climate change and the developing countries: the difficulties posed by green patents(2023)Journal Of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 18, 5 | |
| 31395
|
Wang, Y Has China Established a Green Patent System? Implementation of Green Principles in Patent Law(2022)Sustainability, 14, 18 | |
| 30293
|
Desch, B Fast-Tracks And Prizes: A Multi-Pronged Approach To Incentivizing Green Technology Innovation(2023)Washington Law Review, 98, 2 |