Part IV explains why the U.S. system does not view patent insurance as a solution to the current patent litigation system through the lens of existing scholarship.
However, despite the realisation that this is very challenging, it is very likely that users will have extremely high expectations (even for automatically generated databases), which in turn makes it quite probable that users will view patent chemistry databases as not being fit for purpose for this specific task.
Economic theory views patents as policy instruments aimed at fostering innovation and diffusion.
We need to go back to viewing patents as a way to put ideas in play.
Instead of viewing patents as we once did — as a way to encourage inventiveness and innovation, we may be better suited to see them for what they have become: an economic drag and an attractive target for patent trolls, who see them as a way to exact tributes from deep-pocketed tech companies.
As the benefits of viewing patents as a business asset (and not just as a by-product of a product development cycle) increased, some entities decided that rather than using R&D to produce new products or services, they would instead generate patents.
From the time it applied for its first patent in 1994, Mr. Le Gette said, the company viewed patent infringement as a threat.
The respondents viewed patented medicines as superior in quality, efficacy, and safety.
In the patent bar, there was an even more strident view that patents were only of interest to patent lawyers.
While it has been argued that the increased patent valuations amount to a patent bubble, these valuations signal a new view of patents as an IP risk mitigation strategy that minimizes exposure to IP threats.
It seems that under the FTC view, drug patents would be treated more harshly than other patents.
