Other Types of Patents Quiz

PDF page 55: preclude others from making, using, or selling the invention during the term of the patent, which begins on the grant date and ends 20 years from the filing date (for an average of 17 to 18 years). But in addition to these, the Patent Act also provides for two other types of patents—plant patents and design patents.

PDF page 55: preclude others from making, using, or selling the invention during the term of the patent, which begins on the grant date and ends 20 years from the filing date (for an average of 17 to 18 years). But in addition to these, the Patent Act also provides for two other types of patents—plant patents and design patents.

PDF page 55: preclude others from making, using, or selling the invention during the term of the patent, which begins on the grant date and ends 20 years from the filing date (for an average of 17 to 18 years). But in addition to these, the Patent Act also provides for two other types of patents—plant patents and design patents.

PDF page 55: Plant patents were first created by the Patent Act of 1930 (https://www.openstax.org/l/PatentAct1930), which had been proposed by Luther Burbank to protect new species of asexually reproduced plants, mostly flowers. These are different than the utility patents granted to bioengineered plants used in agriculture. The United States was the first country in the world to grant plant patents, and even today many countries continue to deny protection for plants. Indeed, even some signatories to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) reserve the right to deny patents for plants. Although the requirements for plant and design patents are substantially the same as those for utility patents, there are some crucial differences. The most important of these is the substitution of a different test for one of the three criteria for patentability discussed in the previous section. Instead of novelty, utility, and non-obviousness, the criteria for plant patentability are novelty, distinctiveness, and non-obviousness. To be patentable, plants must be cultivated rather than found in the wild, and plant patents are granted only to protect a new, distinct, and non-obvious variety of asexually reproduced plant—i.e., those grown not with seeds but by grafting, budding, or cutting. A plant need not be useful to qualify for a patent, but it must be distinctive in its color, habit, soil, flavor, productivity, form, or other aspects.

PDF page 55: Plant patents were first created by the Patent Act of 1930 (https://www.openstax.org/l/PatentAct1930), which had been proposed by Luther Burbank to protect new species of asexually reproduced plants, mostly flowers. These are different than the utility patents granted to bioengineered plants used in agriculture. The United States was the first country in the world to grant plant patents, and even today many countries continue to deny protection for plants. Indeed, even some signatories to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) reserve the right to deny patents for plants. Although the requirements for plant and design patents are substantially the same as those for utility patents, there are some crucial differences. The most important of these is the substitution of a different test for one of the three criteria for patentability discussed in the previous section. Instead of novelty, utility, and non-obviousness, the criteria for plant patentability are novelty, distinctiveness, and non-obviousness. To be patentable, plants must be cultivated rather than found in the wild, and plant patents are granted only to protect a new, distinct, and non-obvious variety of asexually reproduced plant—i.e., those grown not with seeds but by grafting, budding, or cutting. A plant need not be useful to qualify for a patent, but it must be distinctive in its color, habit, soil, flavor, productivity, form, or other aspects.

PDF page 55: Plant patents were first created by the Patent Act of 1930 (https://www.openstax.org/l/PatentAct1930), which had been proposed by Luther Burbank to protect new species of asexually reproduced plants, mostly flowers. These are different than the utility patents granted to bioengineered plants used in agriculture. The United States was the first country in the world to grant plant patents, and even today many countries continue to deny protection for plants. Indeed, even some signatories to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) reserve the right to deny patents for plants. Although the requirements for plant and design patents are substantially the same as those for utility patents, there are some crucial differences. The most important of these is the substitution of a different test for one of the three criteria for patentability discussed in the previous section. Instead of novelty, utility, and non-obviousness, the criteria for plant patentability are novelty, distinctiveness, and non-obviousness. To be patentable, plants must be cultivated rather than found in the wild, and plant patents are granted only to protect a new, distinct, and non-obvious variety of asexually reproduced plant—i.e., those grown not with seeds but by grafting, budding, or cutting. A plant need not be useful to qualify for a patent, but it must be distinctive in its color, habit, soil, flavor, productivity, form, or other aspects.

PDF page 55: Plant patents were first created by the Patent Act of 1930 (https://www.openstax.org/l/PatentAct1930), which had been proposed by Luther Burbank to protect new species of asexually reproduced plants, mostly flowers. These are different than the utility patents granted to bioengineered plants used in agriculture. The United States was the first country in the world to grant plant patents, and even today many countries continue to deny protection for plants. Indeed, even some signatories to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) reserve the right to deny patents for plants. Although the requirements for plant and design patents are substantially the same as those for utility patents, there are some crucial differences. The most important of these is the substitution of a different test for one of the three criteria for patentability discussed in the previous section. Instead of novelty, utility, and non-obviousness, the criteria for plant patentability are novelty, distinctiveness, and non-obviousness. To be patentable, plants must be cultivated rather than found in the wild, and plant patents are granted only to protect a new, distinct, and non-obvious variety of asexually reproduced plant—i.e., those grown not with seeds but by grafting, budding, or cutting. A plant need not be useful to qualify for a patent, but it must be distinctive in its color, habit, soil, flavor, productivity, form, or other aspects.

PDF page 55: Plant patents were first created by the Patent Act of 1930 (https://www.openstax.org/l/PatentAct1930), which had been proposed by Luther Burbank to protect new species of asexually reproduced plants, mostly flowers. These are different than the utility patents granted to bioengineered plants used in agriculture. The United States was the first country in the world to grant plant patents, and even today many countries continue to deny protection for plants. Indeed, even some signatories to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) reserve the right to deny patents for plants. Although the requirements for plant and design patents are substantially the same as those for utility patents, there are some crucial differences. The most important of these is the substitution of a different test for one of the three criteria for patentability discussed in the previous section. Instead of novelty, utility, and non-obviousness, the criteria for plant patentability are novelty, distinctiveness, and non-obviousness. To be patentable, plants must be cultivated rather than found in the wild, and plant patents are granted only to protect a new, distinct, and non-obvious variety of asexually reproduced plant—i.e., those grown not with seeds but by grafting, budding, or cutting. A plant need not be useful to qualify for a patent, but it must be distinctive in its color, habit, soil, flavor, productivity, form, or other aspects.

PDF page 55: Plant patents were first created by the Patent Act of 1930 (https://www.openstax.org/l/PatentAct1930), which had been proposed by Luther Burbank to protect new species of asexually reproduced plants, mostly flowers. These are different than the utility patents granted to bioengineered plants used in agriculture. The United States was the first country in the world to grant plant patents, and even today many countries continue to deny protection for plants. Indeed, even some signatories to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) reserve the right to deny patents for plants. Although the requirements for plant and design patents are substantially the same as those for utility patents, there are some crucial differences. The most important of these is the substitution of a different test for one of the three criteria for patentability discussed in the previous section. Instead of novelty, utility, and non-obviousness, the criteria for plant patentability are novelty, distinctiveness, and non-obviousness. To be patentable, plants must be cultivated rather than found in the wild, and plant patents are granted only to protect a new, distinct, and non-obvious variety of asexually reproduced plant—i.e., those grown not with seeds but by grafting, budding, or cutting. A plant need not be useful to qualify for a patent, but it must be distinctive in its color, habit, soil, flavor, productivity, form, or other aspects.

PDF page 55: Plant patents were first created by the Patent Act of 1930 (https://www.openstax.org/l/PatentAct1930), which had been proposed by Luther Burbank to protect new species of asexually reproduced plants, mostly flowers. These are different than the utility patents granted to bioengineered plants used in agriculture. The United States was the first country in the world to grant plant patents, and even today many countries continue to deny protection for plants. Indeed, even some signatories to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) reserve the right to deny patents for plants. Although the requirements for plant and design patents are substantially the same as those for utility patents, there are some crucial differences. The most important of these is the substitution of a different test for one of the three criteria for patentability discussed in the previous section. Instead of novelty, utility, and non-obviousness, the criteria for plant patentability are novelty, distinctiveness, and non-obviousness. To be patentable, plants must be cultivated rather than found in the wild, and plant patents are granted only to protect a new, distinct, and non-obvious variety of asexually reproduced plant—i.e., those grown not with seeds but by grafting, budding, or cutting. A plant need not be useful to qualify for a patent, but it must be distinctive in its color, habit, soil, flavor, productivity, form, or other aspects.

PDF page 55: Design patents are granted to protect new, original, and non-obvious ornamental designs for articles of manufacture. Examples include Apple’s 2009 and 2010 patents—No. D593087 (https://www.openstax.org/l/ USD593087) and No. D618677 (https://www.openstax.org/l/USD618677)—which covered among other things the unique, rounded-corner design of the iPhone, as well as its 2005 design patent No. D504889 (https://www.openstax.org/l/USD504889) for the look and feel of the iPad. Design patents can be just as valuable as utility patents, as Apple discovered when a jury awarded it $1 billion in damages against Samsung in August 2012, for the latter’s infringement of Apple’s utility and design patents. The case is currently on appeal.

PDF page 55: Like plant patents, design patents also substitute a different test than utility in their requirements for patentability. Instead of the novelty, utility, and non-obvious requirements for utility patents, the criteria for design patents are novelty, ornamentality, and non-obviousness. It was on the subject of design patents that one example of media confusion appeared. The New York Times published an article November 16, 2012, declaring in a sensational headline that “Apple Now Owns the Page Turn (https://www.openstax.org/l/ApplePageTurn).” The article claimed that a new Apple design patent “gives Apple the exclusive rights to the page turn in an e-reader application.” According to the article’s author, this showed “just how broken the patent system is.”