Because the framers of the United States Constitution {written in 1787) believed that protecting property rights relating to inventions would encourage the new nation's economic growth, they gave Congress—the national legislature—a constitutional mandate to grant patents for inventions. The resulting patent system has served as a model for those in other nations. Recently, however, scholars have questioned whether the American system helped achieve the framers' goals. These scholars have contended that from 1794 to roughly 1830, American inventors were unable to enforce property rights because judges were "antipatent" and routinely invalidated patents for arbitrary reasons. This argument is based partly on examination of court decisions in cases where patent holders ("patentees") brought suit alleging infringement of their patent rights. In the 1820s, for instance, 75 percent of verdicts were decided against the patentee. The proportion of verdicts for the patentee began to increase in the 1830s, suggesting to these scholars that judicial attitudes toward patent rights began shifting then.

Not all patent disputes in the early nineteenth century were litigated, however, and litigated cases were not drawn randomly from the population of disputes. Therefore the rate of verdicts in favor of patentees cannot be used by itself to gauge changes in judicial attitudes or enforceability of patent rights. If early judicial decisions were prejudiced against patentees, one might expect that subsequent courts—allegedly more supportive of patent rights—would reject the former legal precedents. But pre-1830 cases have been cited as frequently as later decisions, and they continue to be cited today, suggesting that the early decisions, many of which clearly declared that patent rights were a just recompense for inventive ingenuity, provided a lasting foundation for patent law. The proportion of judicial decisions in favor of patentees began to increase during the 1830s because of a change in the underlying population of cases brought to trial. This change was partly due to an 1836 revision to the patent system: an examination procedure, still in use today, was instituted in which each application is scrutinized for its adherence to patent law. Previously, patents were automatically granted upon payment of a $30 fee.

The passage implies that which of the following was a reason that the proportion of verdicts in favor of patentees began to increase in the 1830s?

Patent applications approved after 1836 were more likely to adhere closely to patent law.

Patent laws enacted during the 1830s better defined patent rights.

Judges became less prejudiced against patentees during the 1830s.

After 1836, litigated cases became less representative of the population of patent disputes.

The proportion of patent disputes brought to trial began to increase after 1836.



1.  现象:为了促进经济发展,完善专利保护法


质疑的原因:1820s,法律的裁决75%是不支持专利所有人的;而1830s后,支持的案例开始上升 → 法律态度开始转变

2. 支持的案例不能作为“态度转变”的证据。因为1830s后的法庭还在引用1830s前的裁决。而支持的案例开始上升的真正原因是:1836年的一个体系复查,确保申请人是遵守专利法的.










登录注册 后可以参加讨论