The role of utility models in patent filing strategies: evidence from European countries

Abstract

We examine the role of utility models (UM) in patent filing strategies. With an extensive patent family data from European countries, we explore the structures and characteristics of patent families, which include UMs. A simple typology of patent families with UM members is introduced. We document that the geographical scope of most patent families with UM members is purely national, which is in line with the conventional view that the UM mechanism covers technologically and economically marginal inventions. However, the image of a UM as a signal of a minor invention is an oversimplification. Applicants exhibit a mixture of uses for the UM and there exists a subset of UM filings linked to inventions the inventive step of which meets or exceeds the threshold required for patent protection. Some UMs are members of international patent families, indicating that applicants may have some strategic motives to use UMs in international filing. The findings highlight that both types of IPR documents (UMs and patents) should be taken into account when working with data on patent families, analysing patent filing strategies, and constructing patent-based indicators such as patenting propensities.

IPR gender gaps: a first look at utility model, design right and trademark filings

“…In contrast to patents, they typically protect only physical products and not processes or methods. Design rights are a means of protecting the aesthetic aspects of products (WIPO 2008;Filitz et al 2015;Filippetti and D'Ippolito 2017), whereas utility models are fast protection methods for small and incremental inventions (Beneito 2006;WIPO 2008;Heikkilä and Lorenz 2018;Heikkilä and Verba 2018). TMs are, instead, protection methods for brands but they have also been used as an indicator for innovations (Mendonca et al 2004;Block et al 2015;Schautschick and Greenhalgh 2016;Castaldi 2018).…”

IPR-aineistojen mahdollisuuksia, replikointitarpeita ja teknisiä haasteita

“…Suomessa hyödyllisyysmallin keksinnöllisyysvaatimus on alempi kuin patentilla kuten myös suoja-aika, joka on maksimissaan 10 vuotta. Tutkimusten ja selvitysten mukaan hyödyllisyysmalleja käytetään tyypillisesti suojattujen keksintöjen kansalliseen suojaamiseen eli ne ovat verraten harvoin osa kansainvälistä patenttiperhettä (Heikkilä & Verba 2018). Tutkimuskirjallisuudessa hyödyllisyysmallit ovat jääneet suhteellisen vähälle huomiolle mahdollisesti muun muassa siksi, että Yhdysvalloissa ei ole kyseistä järjestelmää käytössä.…”

“…INPADOC-ja DOCDB-perheet, ks. Martínez 2011; Kang & Tarasconi 2016;Heikkilä & Verba 2018). Hyödyllisyysmallit ovat jääneet tutkimuksissa hyvin vähälle huomiolle, vaikkakin ne löytyvät esim.…”

“…PATSTAT-tietokannasta. Nykyisin valtaosa maailmalla haetuista hyödyllisyysmalleista on kiinalaisia (96,9 % vuonna 2019, WIPO 2021), kun taas Euroopassa hyödyllisyysmallijärjestelmien systemaattinen kehitys on ollut pysähdyksissä jo pidemmän aikaa (Heikkilä 2018;Heikkilä & Verba 2018).…”

Transfer of Agricultural and Biological Sciences Research to Patents: The Case of EU-27

“…Without going into detail regarding European patent law, it should be noted that there are two categories of industrial property rights: patents for invention and utility models [30]. Patents give their holders a territorial right to prevent the commercial exploitation of the patented object without their consent for 20 years from the priority date, while for utility models this is limited to 10 years [31].…”