Resolution

Question Q180

Content and relevance of industrial applicability and/or utility as requirements for patentability

AIPPI Noting that:

a) Article 27 TRIPS provides that, subject to certain exceptions, patents shall be available for
any invention, whether product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that it is new,
involves an inventive step and is capable of industrial application.

b) According to the footnote relating to Article 27 TRIPS, for the purpose of said article, the
term “capable of industrial application” may be deemed by a Member State to be synonymous
with the term “useful”.

c) The Draft SPLT which is currently under discussion at the WIPO contains a provision in Article

12(4) which deals with industrial applicability and/or utility as a third condition of
patentability besides novelty and non obviousness.

Considering that:

d) In its Resolution Q170, which relates to SPLT, the AIPPI reiterated the opinion that it is in the
users’ interest to adopt a harmonisation treaty on at least some substantive patent aspects
at the earliest possible date. Accordingly, it decided to reserve for future discussions, leading
to “SPLT2”, the most difficult issues among which is Article 12(4) relating to the third requirement for patentability.

e) Industrial applicability and utility are not synonymous, although they have some similarities.
In particular, industrial applicability and utility are similar in that, in most countries, both criteria
exclude the patentability of:

– abstract concepts, such as unapplied ideas, theories and laws of nature per se;
– inventions contrary to the laws of nature (e.g. perpetual motion machines);
– inventions which do not provide the effects or results disclosed in the patent.

f) The specific feature of the utility criterion lies in the fact that it requires that the invention provides a benefit to the public, which, for example, excludes from patentability a product having
no specific, substantial and credible use (while such a product would meet the requirement
of industrial application provided it can be manufactured by industry).

g) In most countries, the specific feature of industrial applicability lies in the fact that it excludes
from patentability inventions which can be made and used only in the private or non commercial
sphere (like a contraceptive method which can be used only in the private sphere).

h) In most countries, there are further patentability exclusions or requirements which may result
from industrial application or utility requirements, such as:

– patentability exclusions for fine arts creations or purely ornamental creations;
– patentability exclusions for inventions contrary to morality or public policy;

1

– patentability exclusions for methods for treatment of the human body by surgery or therapy
and diagnostic methods practiced on the human or animal body;

– the requirement of a technical content.

i) In some countries, the effects of the industrial applicability or utility requirements and the effects of other requirements such as inventive step or sufficiency of disclosure may overlap
to a large extent.

j) In its Resolution Q158, which relates to patentability of business methods, the AIPPI resolved
that “Inventions […] should be entitled to patent protection provided that the invention
as defined in the claims has a technical content”.

Adopts the following Resolution:

1) There is a need for a harmonized patentability criterion in addition to novelty and inventive
step and in replacement of industrial applicability and utility.

2) This criterion will be a factor in distinguishing patentable subject matter from non-patentable
subject matter.

3) This criterion should relate to the applicability of an invention, such as to exclude, for example,

abstract ideas, and should not relate to the field of application of the invention.

4) The term “practical applicability” may be appropriate to designate this criterion and is intended to include inventions that are applicable to achieve a practical result.

5) This criterion should not be construed to introduce new patentability requirements which do
not exist under the concepts of industrial applicability or utility.

6) This criterion is not intended to address any requirement of technical content.

7) This criterion should not embrace exclusions based on morality, public order, ethics or the
like. Where a country wants to exclude certain subject matter from patentability for such reasons,

this should not be done by applying this criterion.

Further studies of AIPPI:

AIPPI should conduct further studies to attempt to further define the content of this criterion.

Q180 作为专利性要求的工业应用性和/或实用性的内容和关联性 (参考译文)

　　AIPPI注意到：

　　a. TRIPS（译者注：关于与贸易有关的的知识产权协议，下同。）第27条规定，除了某些例外，不管是产品还是方法，所有技术领域的任何发明，只要它是新的，涉及创造性以及能够付诸工业应用，均可获得专利，。

　　b. 根据与TRIPS第27条相关的脚注，关于本条中，“能够付诸工业应用”的表述，各成员国可以将其与“有用的”一词视为同义语。

　　c. 正在WIPO讨论的SPLT（译者注：实体专利法条约，下同。）草案第12条（4）有一条关于工业应用性和/或实用性作为除新颖性和非显而易见性之外专利性的第三项条件的规定。

　　考虑到：

　　d. 在与SPLT有关的第170题的决议中，AIPPI重申了其观点，为了使用人的利益，尽早就至少一些实体专利方面的问题通过一个协调性的条约。于是，它决定对与专利性的第三个条件有关的12条（4）中最困难的焦点继续进行了讨论，从而产生了SPLT2。

　　e. 尽管工业应用性和实用性有一些相同之处，但它们不是同义词。尤其是，在大多数国家, 虽然工业应用性和实用性的标准近似，但两者都排除了以下的专利性：

　　---抽象的概念，如不能实施的想法、理论和自然法则本身；

　　---违背自然法则的发明（例如：永动机）；

　　---不能产生专利中披露的效果和结果的发明。

　　f. 实用性标准的特点基于发明要给公众以好处这一事实，例如，排除一件没有特别的、实质性和可靠的用处的产品的专利性（虽然它能够用工业的方法制造出来，满足工业应用的要求）。

　　g. 在大多数国家，工业应用性的特点基于排除仅能够在私人或非商业化的范畴制造或使用的发明的专利性的事实（就像避孕的方法只能在私人范畴里使用一样）。

　　h. 在大多数国家，有一些因为工业应用性或实用性的要求而造成的专利性例外或要求，比如：

　　---艺术创作或纯装饰性创作的专利性；

　　---违反道德和公共方针的发明的专利性；

　　---人体的外科治疗方法或人或动物身体的诊断和诊治方法；

　　---一项技术内容的要求。

　　i. 有些国家，工业应用性或实用性要求的影响和其它诸如创造性或公开的充分性要求的影响可能会相当大程度上的重复;

　　j. 在与生意方法的专利性有关的第158题决议中，AIPPI决议“发明[…]应该授予专利保护，除非在权利要求中所界定的发明含有技术内容”。

　　通过以下决议：

　　1、 除了新颖性和创造性以及替换工业应用性和实用性外需要有一个经协调的专利性标准。

　　2、 这一标准将是区分可专利主题和不可专利主题的要素。

　　3、 这一标准应与发明的应用性有关，例如：不包括抽象性的观点，但不应与发明的应用领域有关。

　　4、 “实际应用性”一词用来称呼这一标准可能比较合适，而且意在将那些适合获得实际成果的发明包括进来。

　　5、 这一标准不应解释为采用新的专利性要求，而这种新的专利性要求在工业应用性或实用性概念下并不存在。

　　6、 这一标准不是要处理任何技术内容的要求。

　　7、 这一标准不应包括基于道德，公共秩序，伦理等例外情况。如果一个国家因为这些理由去排除某些主题的专利性，该标准不应适用。

　　AIPPI进一步研究：

　　AIPPI 应对此进一步研究，从而进一步明确该标准的内容。