Journals / Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2

Internet of Things and Patents: Towards The IoT Patent Wars?

Pages
47–66
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The (perhaps cold) war seems impending, due to a number of reasons, such as the complexity of the supply chain, the several domains in which the IoT is divided and the composite nature of the IoT devices.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Intellectual property is a key, albeit overlooked, issue when it comes to the Internet of Things (IoT).
📊
Key Findings & Data:With the IoT patenting activity being over eight times larger than the general worldwide increase in pat­enting, research on this field appears critical.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The (perhaps cold) war seems impending, due to a number of reasons, such as the complexity of the supply chain, the several domains in which the IoT is divided and the composite nature of the IoT devices.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Internet of Things · IoT · software patents

Özet

Intellectual property is a key, albeit overlooked, issue when it comes to the Internet of Things (IoT). It is still unclear, for instance, to what extent trade secrets can be used to prevent the user from controlling their own device (the so-called right to hack) and to hinder interoperability. Likewise, it is still to be fully explored to what extent intellectual property (database rights) can be used to prevent data portability. This paper focuses on patent law and, namely, on computer-implemented inventions by giving account of the approaches followed in Europe, United States, and India. With the IoT patenting activity being over eight times larger than the general worldwide increase in pat­enting, research on this field appears critical. The occasion of this study is the adoption in 2016 of the final version of the Indian guidelines on the examination of computer-related inventions, which have been surprisingly overlooked in the legal literature. The main idea is that the Internet of Things will lead to a dramatic increase of applications for soft­ware patents and if examiners, courts, and legislators will not be careful, there is the concrete risk of a surreptitious generalised grant of patents for computer programs as such (in Europe) and for abstract ideas (in the United States). The clarity provided by the Indian guidelines, following a lively public debate, can constitute good practices that Eu­rope, the United States, as well as the Republic of Turkey, should take into account.With the increase of IoT patents, it is foreseeable the shift from the smartphone wars to the IoT wars, as evidenced by some recent litigation between Fitbit and Jawbone. The (perhaps cold) war seems impending, due to a number of reasons, such as the complexity of the supply chain, the several domains in which the IoT is divided and the composite nature of the IoT devices.

🔖

Cite This Article

DIEGA, G. N. L. (2017). Internet of Things and Patents: Towards The IoT Patent Wars?. Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2, 47–66. https://ajindex.com/articles/361441

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Aggarwal, V. (2015). India’s first Internet of Things policy to focus on Zero Defect, Zero Effect. The Economic Times India. Retrieved from arti-cles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-04-10/ news/61017670_1_iot-m-sips-draft-policy. Amundson, S. (2016). United States: Pat¬ent Disputes Over Wearables May Herald Broader¬Patent Litigation Regarding The Internet Of Things. Mondaq Business Briefing (4 April). Beardwood, J. & Bowman, M. (2016). The in¬ternet of things and privacy: when do privacy laws apply? Comps. & Law, 26(Jun/Jul), 37-40.
  2. CEN and CENELEC (2016).
  3. Standard Essential Patents and Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminato¬ry (FRAND) Commitments (CEN-CENELEC). Chathurvedula, S. (2015). Revised guidelines for software patents put on hold. Live Mint. Re¬trieved at www.livemint.com/Industry/XGBbgNll¬mvuEUhJWs2cWgK/Revised-guidelines-for-soft¬ware-patents-put-on-hold.html. Christie, A.F., Dent, C. & Liddicoat, J. (2016). The Examination Effect: A Comparison of the Out¬come of Patent Examination in the US, Europe and Australia, J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L., 16, 21. Comments and recommendations on the Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (CRIs) (2015). Retrieved at www.knowl¬edgecommons.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ Comments-Recommendations-on-CRI-Guide¬lines-2015.pdf. Concerns over the “Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs)” (2015). Re¬trieved at sflc.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Let¬ter_CRIGuidelines2015-Prime-Minister.pdf. Consumers International (2016). Connection and Protection in the Digital Age. The Internet of Things and challenges for consumer protection. April 2016. Retrieved at http://www.consumersinter¬national.org/media/1657273/connection-and-pro¬tection-the-internet-of-things-and-challeng¬es-for-consumer-protection.pdf
  4. Crouch, D. (2016). First Amendment Finally Reaches Patent Law. Retrieved at http://patentlyo. com/patent/2016/10/amendment-finally-reaches. html. Davis, R. (2016). The Top Patent Cases of 2016: Midyear Report. Retrieved at http://www.law360. com/articles/812729/the-top-patent-cases-of-2016- midyear-report. Elvidge, J., Morrison, J. & Bijman, M. (2016). The IoT: A Look at the IP Landscape of Fitness Wear¬ables. IP Watchdog (24 August). European Patent Office. (2016). Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, No¬vember 2016. Retrieved from http://www.epo.org/ law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/index. htm. European Patent Office. (2013). Patents for soft¬w