IPR

2019年2月23日星期六

IPO與IPR智財證券化

文/郭立昌

IPO（Initial Public Offerings）是國際資本市場提供企業初次上市的機會，募集資源以落實創業的理想。IPR（智慧財產權，Intellectual Property Right）的原意是由公部門收取年費並提供創作發明人保護，協助促成「無形資產（Intangible Assets）實質化（substantialization）」，進而「量化（quantitative）作價（pricing）」，而予以「證券化（securitization）」則是能獲得所需資源，以促成創意變現的工具。

IPO的企業有剛起步、成長中、以及快速成長的公司，但一般人沒有機會參與IPO的投資，因為證券承銷商都已經承包去了。除非企業在IPO之前（Pre-IPO）作審慎的股權規劃，就像有些幸運兒在1882年愛迪生創辦電燈公司時，投資壹仟美元，其子子孫孫都能夠接受良好的教育，在競爭的世代中出人頭地；有人在1976年投資壹萬美元於比爾蓋茲的微軟公司，而成為億萬富翁。筆者培育之Panhornic ComMec Holding（磐虹科技控股，PCH）公司，以可多國參與的貿易系統—「全球通路-TES」，曾經在公元2002年獲得中國市場的支持，美國國際法人投資機構承諾投資六億美元於成都示範應用，並輻射至全球市場；因「全球通路-TES」擁有國際重大會議提案的「IPR（智慧財產權，Intellectual Property Rights）」，兼具「公益使命」與商業價值，投資銀行亦曾到PCH的矽谷辦公室，算出1,155億美元未來收入的數字。

說起「資本市場（Capital Market）」，人們總會想到「紐約華爾街（NY’s Wall Street）」，我們曾經在1975年成功進軍華爾街，緣起於我們成功地從真空管時代升級進入了電晶體時代。筆者的美國客人藍約翰先生1969年說：「真空管要淘汰了，準備迎接衝擊吧！」我們努力地開發新產品，以避開強烈的撞擊；但華爾街有許多人不相信用那麼久的「真空管（Vacuum Tube）」會遭淘汰，結局是許多企業應聲倒地，華爾街大崩盤，高樓林立的華爾街，成為跳樓的最佳場所。

美國客人在1973年又來找筆者，提到自1966年來台灣高雄加工出口區創業，如今佔有全世界百分之八十的電視機天線市場，應當回美國華爾街上市；經過兩年的努力，也真的以「AVNET」之名在「NYSE（紐約證交所）」成功掛牌上市。

美國客人富有創意及善於市場行銷，筆者擅長開發產品、製造，並提供廠房土地等「有形資產（Tangible Assets）」，兩造合作，相輔相成，相得益彰。1979年，當筆者完成國民義務飛抵紐約，藍先生在雙子星的餐廳請吃飯時，說：「當年冒險帶著兒子到台灣投資，實感前途未卜；想不到遇上你這個奇怪的少年人，而有今天的光景。」我們這件合作的成功案例—從台灣至紐約NYSE上市，至今仍保持完整的紀錄。因此，當筆者2002年拿著「IPR鑑價報告」到美國，華爾街的投資專家看了無不雀躍不已，咸認為將是「NASDAQ的強力驅動器」，而「IPR＋IPO」即將譜寫歷史新頁，落實「富裕台灣」的社會公益使命目標；但卻遭海島貪腐集團結合公器羅織「吸金資匪」莫須有罪名，攔截蹂躪並踐踏，以致功敗垂成。

古云：「有德司契，無德司轍。」有能力者拿著薄薄一張地契，勝過拖車拖到陷於淤泥之中；上帝恩賜我們的IPR就是那「契」。提到IPR，必須知道聯合國（UN, United Nations）17個專門機構（Specialized Agencies）之一的「世界智慧財產組織（WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization—簡稱世界智財組織）」；WIPO目前約有180多個成員國（Member States），管理24個「國際條約（International Treaties）」；WIPO對「智慧財產（Intellectual Property, IP）」與「智慧財產權（Intellectual Property Right, IPR）」作明確的定義如下：

一、智慧財產（IP）：

智慧財產（IP）意指「創意的創作（the creations of the mind）」，可分為兩大類：「1.工業產權（Industrial Properties）：包括發明專利（patents for inventions）、商標（trademarks）、工業產品外觀設計、積體電路（IC, integrated circuits）和地圖標誌（geographical indications）等。2. 著作權及相關權利（Copyrights and Related Rights）：包括文學和藝術表現形式—例如小說、詩歌、戲劇、電影、音樂、藝術作品和建築，以及其表演藝術家在他們的表演、聲音和影音製作品—包含廣播和電視節目。」

二、智慧財產權（IPR）：

智慧財產權係許可「創作者（the Creators）」—或稱之為「專利（patents）、商標（trademarks）、著作權作品（copyrighted works）的擁有者，能在他們的成果及投資於創作上獲得利益」—這是根據《世界人權宣言第27條》（in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights）所列出的權利，其提供保護創作者的精神和物質利益（which provides for the right to benefit from the protection of moral and material interests）—包括任何在科學（scientific）、文學（literary）或藝術作品（artistic work）產出的成果。IPR智慧財產權乃被定義於「人權（Human Right）」的層次之中。

WIPO（世界智財組織）所定義的IPR（智慧財產權）和IP（智慧財產），顯示了兩個互補的概念，特繪製「智財（IP）流程圖」說明如下：

發明人（創作者）有個創意或想法（idea）—予以「書面化與圖面化」，送往智慧財產局（智財局）申請—即公開登記（據悉專利的英文“Patent”是由拉丁文的“公開”轉用的），經過審核、公告、異議之後，確認沒問題，發明人（申請人）會收到政府部門（智財局）核發的證書—這張「證書」就是「IPR（智慧財產權）」。而「智慧財產（IP）」則不需如此行，例如有位台南鄉親洪一峰先生創作了一首「舊皮箱的流浪兒」的歌，公開發表後，人人都知道：「“舊皮箱的流浪兒”是洪一峰的作品。」—智慧財產就是洪一峰的；即使有朝一日創作者因年邁辭世，其智慧財產還能被繼承。

由於，海島貪腐集團利用台灣為「非聯合國會員」，藐視國世界智財約章；因此，筆者受邀出席2006年越南河內APEC領袖會議時，各國政經領袖認為應制訂更高標準的「協議（agreement）」，用嚴格的法律來約束貪腐集團的惡劣行為。尤其是，貪腐的慣技是「捆鎖發明創作人於專利訴訟之中（the abuse of the patent litigation is stifling the inventor）」，此等行徑只會「拖垮經濟（to put a drag on our economy）」。領袖們咸認為茲事體大，務必儘快簽署相關協議，來制裁這些「智財賊（Intellectual Property Theft）」—並非僅是單純的「侵權者（Infringer）」。並建立「重罪（felonies）」的概念，以「公訴（indictment）」罪來繩智財賊以法，並非只有「金錢罰款（monetary fine）」，而是應該「送進牢裡（putting them into jail）」。講到氣憤填膺，強調：「若非貪腐作為，最佳實例--『全球通路-TES』已經運轉了---」

及至新加坡APEC領袖會議，與會代表在談「重建全球經濟（Rebuilding the Global Economy）」之道時，仍認為「新的架構協議」有其必要性；尤其是，應揚棄傳統的有形資產包袱，重新定義「資產證券化」，採取筆者倡議多年的「IPR＋IPO」模式，以「原創性」與「具有未來市場性」為考量重點，才足以鼓舞創新發明，啟動復興經濟的引擎，建造公義的新經濟時代。

筆者整理會議相關內容後，歸納「IP證券化（Securitization）」為下圖：

圖中從左上方的「原創者（Originator）」啟動，原創者已確定是「GC-TES (全球通路-TES)」智財所有權人，委任安排者（Arrangers）—工作團隊有會計師、律師和專業顧問，進行架構設計及安排，與有關公部門當局（Authorities）和證券承銷商（Underwriters）聯繫。公部門當局調查使用者（IP Users）與侵權者（Infringers）的情況，追溯既往，並預估未來收入；證券承銷商則把數字量化作價（Quantitative），列為「應收帳款（Receivable）」，回饋予原創者。同時，證券承銷商把應收帳款予以「證券化」（Securitization），轉換成衍生性金融商品，送進金融市場買賣。侵權者除了金錢罰款之外，刑責難免。這張「IP證券化（IP Securitization）」圖在APEC領袖會議普獲各國政經領袖接受，逐漸成為定型化的行動綱領。

近年來，有志一同的國家正朝著上圖的概念在落實，盼能「獎勵創作發明人」，而非被貪腐利用專利陷阱與司法蟑螂轄制。因為，創意本身即非常可貴，從「智財（IP）流程圖」可看出全部的流程都牽涉到「錢」；此外，還必須投注時間和心血，作相當大的犧牲，才可能轉化創意為實物。而欲商品化，又是另一艱辛的挑戰。若任由貪腐集團劫掠、或經由金權掛勾的模式，不但對創作發明極為不公平，更扼殺後進者的動機，終將造成惡性循環，絕非重建全球經濟所樂見。因此，各先進國家，以及國際組織如聯合國（UN）、世界貿易組織（WTO）、OECD（經濟合作暨發展組織）、APEC（亞太經合會）等都不斷地重申保護「智慧財產權（IPR）」、或「智慧財產（IP）」的重要性，以促進創新的風潮，進而促成社會的普遍性繁榮。

筆者自少年創業，每天都在消滅昨日的產品，故根本不需要申請所謂的「專利」；但是，為了落實「創新產業」以解決「結構性失業問題」之長程的公益使命目標，也為防止在落實使命的過程中不受到惡徒干擾，故在確定「全球通路-TES」各項元件可行後，加上國際友人的鼓勵而申請各國專利證書（Patent Certificates）；然後，根據這些「專利證書（即IPRs）」在APEC提案，而成為「智慧財產（IP）」。

台灣因不是聯合國（UN）的會員，所以台灣並非「WIPO (聯合國智財組織)」的會員。但台灣以中華台北（Chinese Taipei）的名稱在1991年加入APEC，2001年上海APEC通過「IPR約章」；此外，台灣在2002年成功加入「WTO（世界貿易組織）」，理應遵守WTO與APEC的IPR規約。筆者曾在2002年3月向行政院長游錫堃建言「智慧財產權的重要性」，當時某財政部次長卻對筆者說：「什麼智慧財產權？那有什麼重要？又不能吃---」民間NGO非政府人士為落實「富裕台灣計畫」，遠赴華爾街和中國海峽經科中心獲得奧援，運用「全球通路-TES」，協助我國產業升級，成為新經濟時代的領航員，居然得到這般回應？甚難想像。

詎料，2002年8月7日在北京與海峽經科中心簽了一張「工作委託書」返台後，調查局即介入騷擾；接著，與我們產學合作《IPR理算鑑價報告書》的學術單位，既被約談，也被地檢署傳喚至偵查庭，嚇死老實的讀書人。連筆者的岳母丁郭好女士這樣的鄉下婦人都不放過，將她約談嚇至失智，被送往安養院後就去世了！而那對筆者叫著「當台灣的義工不會死」的婦人丁玲虹，也在檢警調加黑白兩道的圍攻之下，撐至2004年11月終於倒在我面前，如同汽車熄火，被嚇到失智、失語、失憶，兩眼瞳孔無光，醒來後，雙手抱胸，驚惶地繞著一塊磁磚，轉不出去。若非上帝垂憐，伸手搭救，早已命喪黃泉矣。海島貪腐集團不遵守聯合國專業機構WIPO的智財公約，至少應當遵行「WTO與APEC的智財約章」。如今，新的架構協議一一出爐，海島惡徒肇致我國錯失主導主流科技社會的良機，再斷送產業的生命；因為，未來全是「非接觸式感應的世代」，我國的產業界將全淪為無辜的受害者。不過，海島貪腐即使逃得過法律制裁，筆者相信還有天地的主宰，上帝的審判必會降臨。

1980年代，筆者放棄統一台灣精密工業的機會，把資源投注於「社會責任投資（SRI）」，創造出長串非接觸式感應世代的應用產品—例如「TranSmart感應卡、TRD讀取裝置（Toller）、VAM、eStore…」等等，勞碌奔波爭取國際法案與政策；但這個不求回報的天使級投資人，竟然也有接不完的漫天亂箭，難怪河內APEC領袖會議裡，各國政經領袖了解2003年APEC「最佳實例（the Best Practice of the Practices）」居然在台灣遭肆虐至極，不約而同地搖著頭說：「你們被你們的政府迫害了！」並定義海島惡徒為「貪腐集團（the Entities of Corruption）」。

日本於1996年在APEC成立「智慧財產權專家小組（IPEG, Intellectual Property Rights Experts Group）」，宗旨為履行「TRIPS（與貿易相關的智慧財產權協定，Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights）」，進行各經濟體必要的技術合作。日本自1996年起擔任主導IPEG的經濟體，台灣從2003年3月接任（海島貪腐居然仍敢猖狂，可見內情不單純）。日本在2002年7月於美國舉行的IPEG會議上，倡議設立「IPR服務中心（IPR Service Center）」作為APEC區域經濟之侵權（IP-Infringers）相關資訊交換網，盼經由各經濟體的IPR服務中心，創作者得以向侵權國家司法單位通報，智財所有權人並得以獲得適當處置。顯然，海島當局深知IPR國際約章，卻仍放任貪腐猖獗。

澳洲政府因鑑於區域經濟發展失衡的問題日趨嚴，特在2003年泰國APEC自費舉辦「最佳實例政策」論壇，Panhornic ComMec Holding（磐虹科技控股）公司董事長丁玲虹（Linda Din）獲選發表的「Global Channel(全球通路)-TES」根據長串專利智財權提案，贏得「強化經濟社會」之最佳實例，會議決議：「各經濟體應主動積極參與這項澳洲提議的計畫。」然而，原創者丁玲虹和筆者卻被鎖在台灣圍剿至有如罪犯。海島貪腐集團在明鏡高懸的匾額下，指著偷竊到手的中華民國專利證書，說：「你..你..這是假的！」並拿起《國防雇員的女兒—丁玲虹》，指著書：「這裡面寫的都是騙人的！」2006年APEC領袖會議的各國政經領袖，在河內蘇菲特爾酒店，聽見這些劣行，異口同聲說：「反貪腐（Anti-Corruption）應該列入今年的決議！」

「IP (智慧財產)」是聯合國列在於「人權」的層次，經過各國政經領袖確認「貪腐之惡」後，「反貪腐」這把火會持續延燒，屆時侵權者將有如撲火之飛蛾；筆者倡議和倡導之「智財證券化」勢將因有適當法令保障而成為未來創作者出人頭地的工具。

IPR鑑價報告始末---

經過1997-1999年在APEC的努力倡議，我們倡議的「電子商務（E-Commerce）」，由星星之火變為烈燄延燒著，從台灣燒到美國，從加州矽谷燒到紐約華爾街，全世界為之瘋狂，一個新的世代於焉成型。多年來，我們傳揚的「秀才不出門能知天下事」即將美夢成真；我們的使命「創新產業、解決失業」，已完成前段的「創新產業」。創新產業應用「射頻轉換技術」，將TRD讀取裝置、傳訊模組與TSCM 2000管理軟體等安裝於自動販賣機裡，升級為可雲端運算的VAM（智慧型售貨管理員），消費者持非接觸式感應晶片卡來啟動機器，選擇產品購買，卡片和機器完成了扣款的動作，將交易資訊自動傳送回「企業的控制中心」，然後資料處理後通知供應商補貨，完成一個「商業循環」；這個商業循環稱之為「電子商店系統（The eStore System, 簡稱TES）」—乃是新科技經濟系統，形成公益的全球通路，協助弱勢產品獲得公平進出世界市場機會。這是在建立一個「新商業機制（New Commercial Mechanism）」，以及「新商業模式(New Business Model)」，夠是個「模型（Pattern）」。因為造成消費者和企業(B-C)、中心企業和衛星企業(B-B)之間會產生直接的關聯，而且包含了「金流、商流、物流、資訊流」，是一個電子商務的完整版；所以，引起參與APEC各國代表的熱烈迴響，被譽為「最強的商業範本（The Most Powerful Business Model）」；1999年紐西蘭會議時，華爾街的朋友即希望原創者能儘快到國際資本市場登板，帶動良性循環。

筆者在《見證台灣四十年》書中指出IPR的重要性：「身為一個產業傳道人，無時無刻不思把最好的東西帶回來給自己的鄉親；台灣的未來如果不在IPR智慧財產權下工夫，真的前景堪慮！政府也需要特別的注意這塊新興的金融商品市場。」（郭立昌，2005a：367）智慧的(Intellectual)、財產(Property)、權(Right)，所以智慧財產權簡稱為「IPR」。

為落實「社會公益使命」目標，我們認為需要發展一條公益的全球通路，而從自動販賣機的「傳統產業科技化」切入，把先進的感應科技與傳訊科技置入，成為可雲端運算的「VAM（自動售貨管理員，Vending Automation Manager）」。由VAM組成「TES（電子商店系統，The eStore System）」，形成可多國參與的「全球通路-TES」。美國專利局（USPTO）寫了長串駁回專利申請的理由之後，還加了註解，讓我們驚覺：「VAM像愛迪生的電燈，而不是煤油燈；並非作局部功能的改變，而是全面的更新。」爰此，我們發明的TES、VAM的確是「發明（invention）」。煤油燈只需在容器裡倒進煤油，插上燈蕊即可點燃，電燈卻需要電力，電力來自於發電機，發電機又需要到尼加拉瀑布設立發電廠，再以高壓輸配電的方式，透過電塔、電線輸送到每一個城市，每個城市再設立變電所，插上電線桿，裝上電錶，把電送到每一戶人家，在家裡又必須安裝電線、開關、燈座、燈泡，形成整套系統運作，才能使電燈成為日用品。後來，美國專利局核發「發明（Invention）」的專利證書。

少年時，宋代蘇洵所言：「未戰養其財。」（郭立昌，2007d：254）深烙於筆者腦海，並謹守遵行這個原則，故屢屢度過難關，抵達目的地。但婦人之見卻有所不同，居然選擇先在台中港加工出口區投資4.99億元建廠（委託安排者的費用不到300萬美元—新台幣壹億元以下），而在2001年1月27日慘遭闖空門後，才醒悟應以「養財」為先。上帝又賜下機會，因在2001年上海的APEC，無巧不成書的，筆者準備的彩色單張，其中正印著「智財（IP）流程圖」，以解說「TES」與「IPR」的關係，因之同時爭取到「ICT（資通科技）」和「IPR（智財權）」的結論—被納入了領袖宣言裡。是故，返台後，即刻情商某學術單位，曾經深入研究「物流管理」多年的老師們，進行「IPR鑑價報告」的理算過程。

我們民間非政府人士自食其力，貢獻智慧、時間和經驗，集思廣益，大家努力創造成功的實例。學術單位的老師們用心地上網搜尋和自動販賣機相關的資訊，發現當時美國727萬台的自動販賣機，平均每台每年的營收為五千美元；而日本560萬台的機器，平均每台每年的營收為壹萬美元；日本使用自動販賣機的密度，比美國高出一倍。他們搜集許多的資料，加上我們所提供的資訊，將之製作成一份完整的《IPR鑑價報告》；然後，筆者帶著IPR鑑價報告飛赴美國，華爾街的投資機構興趣盎然，結論是：「六億美元在成都進行示範應用。」其中最大的受益者就是我國產業界，因為所需要的元件皆會從台灣輸出，運用華爾街資金和大陸市場，以建立APEC的成功案例。不幸的是，最後的結果如同前述：「貪腐集團結合公器進行無盡的肆虐，以致傷亡慘重。」也斷送民間撮合「美中台」三方合作，落實澳洲倡議的最佳實例政策。

今天，美國有七百六十萬台的自動販賣機等著升級，如同華爾街的專家說：「只要一台賺一百美元，就有七億六千萬美元了！」用這些錢可以供應多少年的學童免費營養午餐？用這些錢可無息幫助多少求學的年輕人？而我國的「社會企業（SE, Social Enterprise）」成為資本市場的新貴，有什麼不好？事成之時，我們只要把Know-How與資源釋出，就能促成產業升級，引領中小企業進入全球通路，得著益處。

祈求天地的主宰，在新世代的開始，伸出大能的手掃蕩貪腐，提升公器的透明度，讓我們熱愛的台灣，大家都能「人在家中做、賺得世界錢」。天佑台灣！

作者郭立昌為APEC領袖會議代表，1974年因創辦成光精密工業有限公司而被行政首長稱為台灣精密工業之父。

參考書目：

丁玲虹（2001）。國防雇員的女兒—丁玲虹。台中：磐虹。

郭立昌（2005a）。見證台灣四十年。台中：磐虹。

郭立昌（2007d）。W型社會。台中：磐虹。

【有智慧財產權（IPR），如需引用，請徵詢作者同意，並註明出處。】

E-mail: richtwn@ms62.hinet.net

〈IPO與IPR智財證券化〉原文張掛於2013/5/20：http://www.wretch.cc/blog/panhornic/15762125

2018年11月4日星期日

3 major claims for the IPR of TES

Claiming the scope of IP Rights of

The Electronic Shopping System (TES)

1. Field of the Invention

· [0002]

The present invention relates to an electronic shopping system that is capable of integrating the sales, delivery and support functions for separated electronic stores. Each one of these electronic stores provides a combination of over-the-counter and self-service merchandising. All transactions are settled on a cashless basis with sales and payment processors that are respectively installed at checkout counters and in automatic vending machines. The processor also has a telecom module to transmit all transaction data back to the control center for consolidated sales and inventory analysis in the system.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

· [0013]

The main objective of an electronic shopping system in accordance with the present invention is to provide an electronic shopping system that is capable of integrating sales, delivery and support functions for separated electronic stores, wherein each store provides a combination of over-the-counter and self-service merchandising. Through the communication capability of the sales and payment processor, the system is able to collate all transaction data from separated electronic stores, without large numbers of service personnel so the sales and inventory administration for the integrated system can be effectively enhanced.

· [0014]

Another objective of the present invention is to provide an electronic shopping system that allows the consumers to purchase goods even when the electronic store is closed. Further, the present invention uses the contactless chip card to create a universal cashless system.

Declared by Linda Din and K-Horn Science Inc.

2018年10月2日星期二

USPTO Director Iancu’s address

"And in a small startup, you need partners who can help you accelerate your development and invest in you."

"If you are not protected,” he said, “God help you!”

Remarks by Director Andrei Iancu at U.S. Chamber of Commerce Patent Policy Conference

April 11, 2018

U.S.

Chamber of Commerce Patent Policy Conference

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Andrei Iancu

Keynote Address

“Role of U.S. Patent Policy in Domestic Innovation and Potential Impacts on Investment.”

April 11, 2018

As prepared for delivery

Thank you Neil (Bradley) for that generous introduction. Thank you also to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its Global Innovation Policy Center for hosting this impressive gathering and inviting me to speak here today.

Dr. Eli Harari, an electrical engineer, always tinkered and invented things. He tells, for example, that he invented a new type of fishing rod, although he never fished.

“Imagine how much more successful you’d be,” his wife said, “if you’d invent in a field you knew something about.”

And so he did. Dr. Harari is credited with inventing the Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory, also known as EEPROM, or “E-squared PROM.” This was in the 1970s, when Harari was working at a major corporation, where he was a star. But a few years later, he wanted to be on his own, to invent, to perfect, to commercialize. In his late 30s, he was also married and had a child. So in the prime of his career, with a family at home, Harari left his comfortable life with major corporations.

Seeding it in part with his own money, Harari started a company of his own. And he did not even draw a salary the first several months. He risked everything: his career, his finances, and his family. That first company actually did not work out well, but a few years later, Harari risked it all again and co-founded a new company, which he ultimately called SanDisk.

At SanDisk, Harari built upon his EEPROM technology, added critically important new inventions, and perfected flash memory data storage. And he obtained patents, including on how to turn memory chips into reliable systems. Harari’s flash technology came to be used almost universally in devices like digital cameras and cell phones. In 2016, Western Digital acquired SanDisk for $19 billion.

But think about it: without patents, how could someone like Dr. Harari risk everything, put aside his secure career at an established company, and strike it on his own?

As Dr. Harari told me, “The only asset you have is your idea. If you have no way to protect your idea, you are at the mercy of the next bad guy. The U.S. patent system is genius, really the bedrock foundation of capitalism.” Harari’s sentiment was echoed by President Ronald Reagan, who said in 1982: “Throughout our nation’s history, the patent system has played a critically important role in stimulating technological advances.”

How true that is.

Yet today, our patent system is at a crossroads. For more than just a few years, our system has been pushed and pulled, poked and prodded. The cumulative result is a system in which the patent grant is less reliable today than it should be. This onslaught has come from all directions. There has been major reform legislation, and proposed legislation. There have been massive changes brought about by major court cases. And the USPTO itself has taken a variety of actions in an effort to implement these changes. Plus, importantly, the rhetoric surrounding the patent system has focused relentlessly on certain faults in, or abuses of, the system—instead of the incredible benefits the system brings to our nation. We see the result of this years-long onslaught in your own study, the U.S. Chamber’s 6th Annual International IP Index.

I don’t need to tell this audience that the American patent system, which in prior years was deservedly ranked as the number one system in the world, in 2017 fell to number 10. And this year it fell further, tied for number 12. But make no mistake: we are still an elite system, a mere ¼ point away from the systems ranked 2-11. And the United States remains the leader for overall IP rights.

Still, we are at an inflection point with respect to the patent system. As a nation, we cannot continue down the same path if we want to maintain our global economic leadership. And we will not continue down the same path. This administration has a mission to create sustained economic growth, and innovation and IP protection are key goals in support of that mission.

So, how do we reverse the trend? The good news is that reclaiming our patent leadership status is within reach.

For today, let me focus on two principal points:

1. Creating a new pro-innovation, pro-IP dialogue, and

2. Increasing the reliability of the patent grant.

First, we must change the dialogue surrounding patents.(我們必須改變週邊專利的對話) Words have meaning. Words impact perception and drive public policy. And for too long, the words surrounding our patent system have been overly-focused on its faults. A successful system cannot be defined by its faults. Rather, a successful system must be defined by its goals, aspirations, and successes. Obviously, errors in the system should be corrected. And no abuse should be tolerated. Errors and abuse should be identified and swiftly eliminated. However, the focus for discussion, and the focus for IP policy, must be on the positive. We must create a new narrative that defines the patent system by the brilliance of inventors, the excitement of invention, and the incredible benefits they bring to society. And it is these benefits that must drive our patent policies.

At my swearing-in, I remarked that through the doors of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office comes our future. And indeed it does, and it always did. We must celebrate that. From Thomas Edison to the Wright Brothers, from Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer to Steve Jobs, American inventors have fueled the imagination of our people for generations. We are a pioneering people who overcome large obstacles in order to realize our dreams and create prosperity. Inventors help make dreams reality, and American invention changes the world. Indeed, with American patents, humans made light, began to fly, treated disease, and enabled instant communications across the globe from tiny devices in our pockets.

And those patents also enabled these inventors to start companies and grow our economy. Our dialogue and policies need to be focused on these amazing achievements, and how we can encourage more of them. Take Walter Hawkins as another example: Hawkins, who in 1942 became the first African American scientist on staff at AT&T’s Bell Labs, developed the plastic coating that covers telephone wires, a more versatile, durable and eco-friendly alternative to the lead standard at the time. It was so durable, in fact, and so effective, that Hawkins’ invention enabled huge investments to bring affordable phone service across America, including rural areas, and to millions of people in the 20th century.

Inventor stories like Hawkins’ and Harari’s are those we need to tell.

This is the American patent system. This is the dialogue we need to have. And this should be the focus of our patent policy. This is how we incentivize innovation and growth. But, how exactly do we translate this into a better patent system?

Here’s a start: when we write, interpret, and administer patent laws, we must consistently ask ourselves "Are we helping these inventors?" Whether it’s an individual tinkering in her garage, or a team at a large corporation, or a laboratory on a university campus, we must ask ourselves "Are we helping them? Are we incentivizing innovation?

And that brings me to my second principal point for today: increasing the reliability of the patent grant. Because that is key to incentivizing innovation. Without reliable patents, inventors like Dr. Eli Harari are less likely to risk it all in order to bring their new concepts to the market.

As I said at my Senate confirmation hearing: “When patent owners and the public have confidence in the patent grant, inventors are encouraged to invent, investments are made, companies grow, jobs are created, science and technology advance.” This year’s Chamber report explains why our patent system has dropped to number 12: “innovators and creators face a challenging environment for protecting their IP under current U.S. law […] U.S. patentability standards and patent opposition procedures continue to create uncertainty for rightsholders.”

So your report identifies two principal reasons for the increased uncertainty (or lower reliability) of our patents:

1. Patentability Standards, or more specifically, patent subject matter eligibility pursuant to 35 USC Section 101; and

2. Opposition procedures, namely, the post-grant procedures, such as IPR, that were established by the America Invents Act.

Let me address each of these in turn.

First, our current law surrounding patentable subject matter has created a more unpredictable patent landscape that is hurting innovation and, consequently, investment and job creation. Recent cases from the Supreme Court – Mayo, Myriad, and Alice – have inserted standards into our interpretation of the statute that are difficult to follow. Lower courts applying these cases are struggling to issue consistent results. Patent lawyers trying to advise their clients are, in turn, struggling to predict the outcome with respect to certain patents. And examiners at the USPTO must spend increased amounts of time addressing this challenging issue. The current standards are difficult for all: stakeholders, courts, examiners, practitioners, and investors alike.

System-wide, a significant amount of time is being spent trying to figure out where the lines should be drawn, and what’s in and what’s out. And multiple people looking at the same patent claims often have trouble agreeing on, and predicting, the outcome. Something must be done. To be sure, we must and will apply Supreme Court law faithfully. This does not mean, however, that more cannot be done to increase clarity and predictability. Of course, given our statutory mandate, there is only so much that the USPTO can do. But within that mandate, we will do everything we can. Currently, we’re actively looking for ways to simplify the eligibility determination for our examiners through forward-looking guidance. Through our administration of the patent laws, which we are charged to execute, the USPTO can lead, not just react to, every new case the courts issue.

Second, your report also mentions our “patent opposition procedures(專利異議程序)” as a reason for the increased uncertainty of our patents. This refers primarily to our Inter Partes Review, or the IPR system. This was a creation of the America Invents Act, and since its introduction five and a half years ago, we have now conducted more than 8,000 such proceedings. It’s been a very popular proceeding. Opinions on this new system diverge widely. Yet each opinion is passionately held by its supporters. Pointing to the high invalidation rates in IPR proceedings, some hate the new system with vigor, arguing that it’s an unfair process that tilts too much in favor of the petitioner.

Others love the system, and think it’s the best tool we have to correct errors, eliminate “bad patents,” and improve patent quality. Who is right? Well, both arguments have legitimate elements. But I encourage people to reduce the hyperbole and look at the process with fresh eyes, in order to understand its true benefits and true challenges. This is what we are now doing at the USPTO.

Indeed, it’s one of our highest priorities. We need to carefully balance rights-holder’s and rights challenger’s interests. On the one hand, for example, this proceeding can come years after issuance, when the patent owners and the public may both have relied on those rights and made investments accordingly. On the other hand, we do want to execute the statutory mandate and help maintain the quality of patent rights. And – assuming the Supreme Court does not declare it unconstitutional – we do want the IPR system to effectively address invalid claims, but at the same time, we don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The filters need to be appropriately set.

And so, among various other things, we are now examining: how and when we institute proceedings, the standards we employ during the proceedings, and how we conduct the overall proceedings.The goal, with whatever action we take, is to increase predictability of appropriately-scoped claims.

Finally on the predictability front, let me mention something that was not addressed directly in your report. If we want truly reliable rights, we must ensure that we issue appropriately-scoped patent claims from the get-go. In other words, we must also focus on the front end. And since our examiners are first in line, we must ensure that they have the tools they need for a thorough search and examination.

Our examiners already do a fabulous job. And it is not easy, given the state of the law and all the information that needs to be processed and analyzed. To further improve the original examination, a next step would be to increase examiners’ ability to find the best prior art during examination. At times, there is a gap between the prior art found during initial examination and the prior art found during litigation. There are many reasons for this, but the main culprits are the ever-accelerating publication and accessibility explosions. These are issues that face every patent office around the world. Indeed, we are ahead of most others on this front. But if we could further narrow this gap in prior art between examination and litigation, then the accuracy of the patent grant – and therefore, its reliability – would increase.

We are focusing on this as well, together with the other issues I’ve already mentioned.

Overall, addressing these various issues, especially as outlined in your report – from patentable subject matter to a carefully balanced post-grant process – we can return our patent system to a higher level of predictability and stability. Finding the right balance on these issues requires work and a holistic, collaborative approach.

As Neil mentioned in his introduction, I come from the private sector. I’ve seen our patent system at work from all sides, and I have represented clients from various sectors, of different sizes, and in different postures. I understand that there are a variety of legitimate points of view. We must work together to achieve a careful balance that is most beneficial to the American economy as a whole. In the end, the hallmarks of a well-functioning patent system are the reliability and predictability of quality patents. This is critical for both patent holders and the public. And the benefits of a well-functioning patent system are indeed unmistakable. It enabled inventors like Eli Harari and Walter Hawkins, who exemplify the brilliance of American innovation, to make significant technological advances while also generating remarkable job creation and progress for our nation.

Of his flash memory inventions, Dr. Harari told me, “We really changed the world.” And as to how his patents helped him start his company? He said, “With a patent, at a minimum we were able to speak relatively freely under an NDA. And in a small startup, you need partners who can help you accelerate your development and invest in you."

"If you are not protected,(如果你沒有受到保護)” he said, “God help you!”

Let me leave you with this: During his first address to Congress in February of last year, President Trump noted that, on our 100th anniversary in 1876, citizens from throughout the country came to Philadelphia to celebrate America’s centennial. At that celebration, the country’s inventors showed off their wonderful creations. Alexander Graham Bell presented his telephone for the first time. Remington revealed the first typewriter. And Thomas Edison showed an automatic telegraph and an electric pen.

President Trump then asked all of us to imagine the wonders our country could know in America’s 250th year. He asked us to think about all the illnesses that could be cured, the distant worlds we could walk on, and the marvels we could achieve if only we could set free the dreams of Americans. That’s how I think about intellectual property. As I see it, no dream is too big if we unleash the power of innovation and give our nation’s inventors the protections they need to succeed. That’s why it’s so important that we find the right balance in the IP system. This is something I’m very passionate about, and fully committed to, as I lead the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

We have a remarkable patent system, born from our Constitution and steeped in our history. It is a crown jewel, a gold standard. We have a unique opportunity to ensure it meets its full Constitutional mandate to promote innovation and grow our economy.

I look forward to working with all of you in support of that great endeavor. Thank you again for the invitation to participate in this important discussion.

訂閱：文章 (Atom)

2019年2月23日 星期六