Building-Blocks-of-Creativity-A-Celebration-of-International-Lego-Day-affa-global

Building Blocks of Creativity: A Celebration of International Lego Day

Patent, Intellectual Property

Building Blocks of Creativity: A Celebration of International Lego Day Every January 28, the global Lego community celebrates it as “Lego Day.” On this date, for the first time, Godtfred Kirk Christiansen, the son of a carpenter from Denmark, registered a Patent for his brick toy in 1958. From a brick toy with unique connectors, Lego has developed into a fun educational toy for all ages, collaborating with many Intellectual Properties (IPs), present in some animated films and series, and has 11 amusement parks worldwide. The word Lego comes from the Danish “leg godt,” which means to play well. It was first introduced in 1932 by Ole Kirk Christiansen, father of Godfred. Initially, Lego was a wooden brick toy with unique protrusions and holes to connect and arrange the bricks. However, for economic reasons, since 1947, Lego switched to plastic materials and registered its first Patent in Denmark and other countries in 1958.     Because they understand the importance of Patents as valuable assets but have a limited protection period (only 20 years), Lego as a company continues to innovate so that the products produced can grow and develop not only from the sale of toys but also from royalty income and license.   Apart from Patents, Lego also has other Intellectual Properties such as Trademarks, Industrial Designs, and Copyrights. As a toy company, there are still Trademarks that must be protected, product designs that continue to develop, and unique characters that continue to be created to stay ahead of competitors.   Staying ahead is an important keyword. Based on Patents and Designs, the original form of Lego has become public domain, meaning it is no longer protected. So, since the 90s, many companies have emerged that use Lego’s outdated technology and design to make various kinds of similar toys.   However, Lego did not remain silent. Its legal team attempted to shut down competitors’ operations by using Trademark law and suing those who use “brick” and/or “block.” However, these efforts fail due to regulations where there is a provision that states, “Trademark law should not be used to perpetuate monopoly rights enjoyed under now-expired Patents.”   Finally, to continue to exist, Lego continues to present many new characters and Lego sets, with Patents, Industrial Designs, and Copyright protection. Should you need further information about Patent protection, Industrial Designs, Copyright, or other Intellectual Property management, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

Writer-Forbids-Singers-from-Performing-Their-Songs-Is-It-Possible-affa-global

Writer Forbids Singers from Performing Their Songs – Is It Possible?

Intellectual Property, Copyright

Writer Forbids Singers from Performing Their Songs – Is It Possible? A few weeks ago, the Indonesian music industry was enlivened by the case of a 35 billion Rupiah lawsuit from Ndhank Surahman Hartono, former guitarist and composer of the song “Mungkinkah” (in English: “Is it possible?”), against the band Stinky, where he used to belong. Apart from prohibiting Stinky from performing the song he wrote, Ndhank also prohibited Stinky’s former vocalist, Andre Taulany, later known as a comedian, from performing the song at any opportunity.   However, two weeks later, Ndhank withdrew his lawsuit after Andre and his colleagues took a family approach. Ndhank even broke off cooperation with the lawyer who had previously directed him to file a lawsuit. Stinky revealed that the song was not created by Ndhank alone but was created with Irwan Batara, a bass player who is still active with Stinky and can be proven by a recordation certificate at the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP), complete with royalties that have been given regularly through the Collective Management Organization (LMK), namely Yayasan Karya Cipta Indonesia (YKCI) and Wahana Musik Indonesia (WAMI).   That demand arose because Ndhank was experiencing economic difficulties, even though he saw that his song was still popular and often performed. He then demanded to renegotiate the distribution of royalties for the song to 90:10 because Irwan Batara’s portion was only the lyrics at the end of the song. So, from an Intellectual Property perspective, does a songwriter have the right to prohibit other parties from performing their songs?   The Copyright Holder of A Song Article 1 of Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright states that a Creator is a person or several people who individually or together produce a Creation that is unique and personal in nature, and Article 40 states, “Songs and/or music with or without text” is a form of protected work.   Uniquely, in a song, the holder of Exclusive Rights (Moral and Economic) is not only the Creator as the Copyright Holder but also musicians, original singers as performers, and song producers who are also considered recipients of Related Rights. So, if a song generates royalties, those entitled to receive them are the creator and all parties listed as recipients of Related Rights. Then, Article 70 of the Copyright Law, which explains Article 40, states that a song is a complete creative work. So it will be difficult for the Creator to claim a 90% share of royalties from a song, as in Ndhank’s demands, without mutual agreement from the other Creator, in this case, Irwan Batara, as well as the recipients of Related Rights, including Andre, the vocalist who popularized the song.   Legal Basis for the Creator to Prohibition Because the original singer who first popularized a song is the recipient of the Related Rights, Article 13 of the Copyright Law also states that if the singer performs in a public performance, it is not considered a violation of Copyright. Unless otherwise indicated or approved by the Performer or the holder of the rights to the performance before or during the performance. So, in the case of the song “Mungkinkah,” what Andre did was not a copyright violation. However, the case is different if the person banned is not the original singer, as was done by Ahmad Dhani, the creator of the DEWA band’s songs, to Once Mekel, the former vocalist of the DEWA. Due to Once’s position as not being the original singer of all of DEWA’s songs, he is not the recipient of the Related Rights of all of DEWA’s songs. Hence, as Creator, Ahmad Dhani has the right to prohibit Once from performing his songs, including not including Once’s name as a royalty recipient.   Ideal Royalty Distribution In particular, no legal regulations regulate what percentage must be received by a creator (songwriter), what percentage is for performers (singers), and what percentage is for music producers because it goes back to their agreement at the beginning. This is where the source of the problem usually arises. In many cases, we can see that the singer then earns a lot of income from the various performances he performs, both alone and with his band. Meanwhile, the part that the songwriter received is only known by himself and the record producer.   Suppose we refer to Spotify, a music platform with 8.8 million users in Indonesia. In that case, the distribution of royalties is wholly handed over to the record producer/label owner and then distributed to the Creator and all recipients of Related Rights. However, what needs to be remembered here is that royalties are obtained from performances delivered by singers or playback of their songs via the application and from commercial playback of songs by other parties, for example, in shopping centers, hotels, cafes, and karaoke rooms.   This is where Collective Management Organization (LMKN) plays a role; as regulated by Government Regulation Number 56 of 2021, LMKN is a government auxiliary institution tasked with collecting and distributing royalties as well as managing the interests of the Economic Rights of Creators and Owners of Related Rights in the field of songs and/or music. If LMKN had functioned optimally in carrying out its duties, popular songwriters would have been able to have a better economy, and cases like this would not need to happen.   Should you need further information about Royalty and Copyright or other Intellectual Property Management, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

专利实质审查实施指南和技术指南综述

Patent, Intellectual Property

专利实质审查实施指南和技术指南综述 技术指南 专利实质审查自申请日起30个月内进行   说明 至少应包括: a. 关于实施本发明的一种方法的说明 b. 如果说明中引用了图形，则应使用与图形中相同的参考信息 c. 关于本发明如何在工业中实施的说明 d. 对发明的简要说明，以便了解本发明 e. 在发明的背景下提及最接近现有技术的技术 所包括的内容如下列顺序所示: 发明技术领域 发明背景 发明简介 图纸简介（如有） 发明详细说明   披露的充分性 说明应当对发明进行明确的披露，以便本领域技术人员能够实施所述发明。 以便公众能够利用本发明，作为回报，应向申请人授予权利。 发明的功能应当予以披露   现有技术背景 发明人应说明在发明的背景中被视为最接近现有如果在检索结果中发现了更接近的现有技术，应在发明的背景中提及最接近的现有技术。 在提及现有技术时，背景应是公平合理的，不应具有误导性。   权利要求 产品权利要求与工艺权利要求的对比 权利要求仅分为两类: 产品权利要求: 适用于物理实体（对象）。产品可能是化合物、设备、系统中设备的组合等。产品权利要求不能通过其使用方法与现有技术区分开来。 工艺权利要求: 适用于活动（方法）。流程可能是生产产品的活动，可能是使用产品的活动，也可能是使用有机体作为主体的活动。   独立权利要求与从属权利要求的对比 独立权利要求 独立权利要求包括寻求保护的发明的所有特征。独立权利要求在内容上不从属于另一种权利要求。 从属权利要求 从属权利要求由独立和/或其他从属权利要求的所有特征组成，并与其所从属的权利要求属于相同的类别。 从属权利要求不得出现以下情况: 与其所从属的权利要求属于不同的类别， 比所从属的权利要求更广泛， 包含所从属的权利要求中不具备的其他特征； 为实现预期目的引用另一权利要求的主题，并且 仅提及所从属的权利要求的一部分。 从属权利要求可从属于多项权利要求。 如果从属权利要求披露先前未描述的特征，独立权利要求应 描述该特征，或者从属权利要求必须优先描述该特征。   工序产品权利要求 工序产品并不仅仅因为它是采用新工艺生产的就具有新颖性。 其新颖性和创造性是通过其自身的产品特征来决定的。   特征 产品权利要求应包含产品特征，工艺权利要求应包含工艺特征。   权利要求的选择 权利要求可能指“和/或”的替代形式，但每种选择应具备相同的基本属性。一种选择必须能够替代另一种选择。   两部分共同构成权利要求（优选形式） 第一部分: 前言，由所述发明的已知技术特征组成 第二部分: 将本发明与需要保护的现有技术进行区分的技术特征。 对于简单专利，所有（有形）产品权利要求及其附属权利要求应分成两部分书写。   权利要求中的数字、图表和参考文献 权利要求不能包含数字或图形，但可以包含表格和数学公式。 为明确起见，可添加涉及数字的符号，并应在括号()之间统一书写。   权利要求中的参数 参数是可以直接测定的产品属性值。除非发明无法用其他方法描述，不允许仅使用参数对产品进行表征。测定方法： 时间太长，无法在权利要求中描述 掌握现有技术的人员知道使用哪种方法，因为只有一种常用的方法。 所有的测定方法得出的结果都是一样的。   一致性 权利要求的书写应该在不同特征之间保持一致，例如：使用现在分词或过去分词，使用主动语态或被动语态。 权利要求应与说明一致 说明应包含与权利要求相同的限定特征。 如果说明中注明某项特征是发明所必需的，该特征必须包括在独立权利要求中。 如果权利要求中未包含说明中的某些实施例，可以扩大权利要求的范围，以包含这些实施例，或者可以从说明中删除这些实施例。 权利要求中使用的所有术语应与说明一致，所有不常见的术语应在说明中定义。   修订 修订不能扩大发明的范围（通过增加主题），但如果其目的是澄清披露的内容，允许修订。Amendment cannot broaden the scope of the invention (by adding a subject matter), but may be allowed if it is intended to clarify the disclosure.   统一性 发明应当具有共同的发明概念。以下独立权利要求的组合可以考虑发明的统一性： a. 专门用于生产该产品的产品权利要求、工艺权利要求； b. 艺权利要求和专门用于实施所述工艺的设备/仪器权利要求；和 c. 产品权利要求，专门用于制造所述产品的工艺权利要求，以及专门用于实施所述产品的制造过程的设备/仪器权利要求。   优先权 针对以下各项授予优先权: a. 巴黎公约或WTO成员国； b. 自优先权申请提交之日起12个月内提出主张优先权的申请； c. 先前的发明应由印度尼西亚申请人提交，或者印度尼西亚申请人作为先前申请人的 d. 合法代理人。 e. 申请应当与先前的发明属于同一发明。 f. 先前的发明应当是该发明的首次申请。 g. 首次申请应向签署巴黎公约的国家或参与世贸组织的国家提出。 化学成分 工序产品权利要求 工序产品权利要求是以工艺特征为主的产品权利要求。在下列情况下，允许提出工序产品权利要求： 无法用产品参数来描述产品。 上述产品具有新颖性。   参数表征产品 在第3.34条中，产品权利要求不应用参数来表征。 当产品不能用其他方法表征时，参数可用于表征产品。 在某些领域，如纳米技术，为了确定以工艺为特征的产品的新颖性，最终产品的参数值可以作为决定新颖性的限制特征。   功能特征产品 功能可以作为决定新颖性和发明步骤的限制特征。 当产品不能用其他方法表征时，功能被用作限制特征。 举一个关于催化剂权利要求的例子，该催化剂只能通过其在工艺中的功能来描述。   参数的测定 如果权利要求披露了参数，权利要求应当明确规定使用何种测定方法来获得该参数。 例如，当权利要求披露MFR（质量流量）作为参数时，认为权利要求不明确，同时ISO 1133:2005规定了MFR的两个测定程序，即：质量测定方法和位移测定方法。 生物 微生物 微生物包括酵母菌、真菌、细菌和放线菌。 微生物包括人体细胞和植物细胞。 清晰度：应采用正确的命名法，品名应写在种名之后。 新颖性：应对新菌株进行具体描述，包括与同一物种的已知菌株的差异。 新物种：以分类和系统发生树描述特征 发明步骤：具有不同分类的新微生物具有独创性。 不可申请专利的发明包括胚胎、种子、植物的组成部分、组织、器官和转基因植物。   非必要生物过程 非必要生物过程是指需要人为干预的生物过程。 例如：植物组织分离方法 不可申请专利的发明包括人工授精、异花授粉和其他可以在没有人为干预的情况下自然发生的过程。   微生物学过程 微生物学过程是利用微生物的生物过程 例如：发酵   核苷酸和基因工程 核苷酸是指DNA、cDNA、引物、基因、载体、转化体。 可申请专利的核苷酸是分离的核苷酸。 新颖性：用BLAST或NCBI检测。 创造性步骤：只要发明步骤至少在性质上具有不同的活动，本发明就被视为具有创造性。 基因可以通过多核苷酸序列、所述多核苷酸编码的氨基酸序列或基因突变来表征。 载体可以通过DNA序列、DNA限制性图谱、分子量和碱基对数来表征。 转化体可以用一个宿主细胞和引入的基因（序列）来表征。   药学 医药发明可采用以下形式: 物理实体 产品或装置和成分构成或化合物 活性: 流程和方法 无限制或无区别的技术特征: 用药方案 给药时间或频率 患者群体   在下列情况下，已知或现有产品的新用途可获得专利:  权利要求的保护旨在将X与“疾病Y”的特征结合起来，作为限制或区分特征。 在这种情况下，权利要求保护旨在使制药工业可生产仅用于治疗高血压的药物X。   药物作用机制 仅定义为作用机制的特征被视为过于宽泛且不可申请专利。 可用作限制/区分特征的“活性或用途”特征是指旨在治疗或预防某些疾病的特征，其功效得到说明书中描述的临床试验数据的证明。   新形态 如果已知化合物的新形式与已知化合物相比没有任何有意义的功效改进，并且没有任何化学结构差异，则不被视为发明。 有意义的疗效改善包括生物利用度、稳定性、溶解度、毒性、效力等方面的改善。有意义的疗效改善需要实验数据的支持。 新形式示例：手性、晶体/溶剂化物/水合物、盐。   治疗方法 体外、离体和计算机检查方法 或诊断方法均可申请专利体内检查或诊断方法不可申请专利。 非治疗性治疗方法可申请专利。治疗性治疗方法不可申请专利。 手术方法 不可申请专利。 直接应用于动物和/或人类的药物治疗方法不可申请专利。   天然药物 当产品本身难以定义时，除了通过工艺特征定义外，允许提出工序产品权利要求：示例：按提取工序定义提取物。 草药产品生产过程中的每一步都影响到产品的质量、安全性和功效。 草药产品制备中的工艺特征可用于确定新颖性和创造性步骤。   电学和物理学 计算机实施发明 计算机实施发明是指利用计算机实施的发明。 本发明的一个或多个特征全部或部分由 计算机程序实现。通过计算机实施发明的特征是指程序特征。在本发明中，源代码不应包括在说明或权利要求中。如果计算机程序具有下列技术特征，视为发明: 有技术手段，例如计算机、服务器、电话、审查器、设备。 当在计算机上运行时，在计算机程序（软件）和计算机之间的正常物理交互之外产生了进一步的技术特征。 分类: 过程方法产品 系统设备产品（计算机程序）计算机可读存储介质   商业方法 只要客体具有技术特征，计算机实施的商业方法即可申请专利。   人工智能 AI和ML基本上是由软件实现的数学模型。技术指南未提及任何关于AI和ML的内容。

특허-실체-심사-시행-지침-및-기술-지침-요약본-affa

특허 실체 심사 시행 지침 및 기술 지침 요약본

Patent, Intellectual Property

특허 실체 심사 시행 지침 및 기술 지침 요약본 기술 지침 특허 실체 심사는 출원 날짜로부터 30개월 이내에 시행됩니다.   설명 최소한 다음 항목이 포함되어야 합니다: a. 본 발명을 수행하는 한 가지 방법에 관한 설명 b. 해당 설명에서 그림을 참조할 경우 그림에서 사용한 것과 동일한 참조를 설명에서도 사용해야 함 c. 본 발명이 업계에서 어떻게 구현되는지에 대한 설명 d. 발명에 관해 이해하기 위한 간략한 설명 e. 발명의 배경으로 가장 가까운 선행 기술에 관한 기술적 언급   다음 순서로 기재: 발명의 기술 분야 발명의 배경 발명에 대한 간단한 설명 도해에 대한 간단한 설명(해당할 경우) 발명에 대한 자세한 설명   충분한 정보 공개 설명에서는 해당 기술을 갖춘 당사자가 언급된 발명을 구현할 수 있도록 해당 발명에 대한 정보를 명확하게 공개해야 합니다. 이는 출원자에게 부여된 권리에 대한 대가로 본 발명을 대중이 활용할 수 있게 하기 위함입니다. 본 발명의 기능을 공개해야 합니다.   선행 기술 배경 발명자는 발명의 배경에 가장 가까운 선행 기술로 간주되는 기술에 대해 명시해야 합니다. 조사 결과 더 가까운 선행 기술이 발견되면 발명의 배경에 해당하는 가장 가까운 선행 기술을 언급해야 합니다. 선행 기술을 언급할 때 그 배경은 정당하고 정직해야 하며 오해의 소지가 있어서는 안 됩니다.   청구항 제품 청구항과 제조방법 청구항 비교 청구항의 범주로는 다음 2가지만 있습니다: 제품 청구항: 물리적 실체(물건)를 다룹니다. 제품은 화합물, 장비, 시스템 내 장비의 조합 등이 될 수 있습니다. 제품 청구항은 그 사용 방법을 통해서는 선행 기술과 구별될 수 없습니다. 제조방법 청구항: 활동(방법)을 다룹니다. 제조방법은 제품을 생산하는 활동, 제품을 사용하는 활동 또는 유기체를 대상으로 사용하는 활동일 수 있습니다.   독립항과 종속항 비교 독립항은 보호가 필요한 본 발명의 모든 특징으로 구성됩니다. 독립항은 다른 청구항의 내용에 따라 달라지지 않습니다. 종속항은 독립항 및/또는 다른 종속항의 모든 특징으로 구성되어 있고 종속되는 모든 청구항과 동일한 범주로 되어 있습니다. 종속항은 다음이 불가능합니다: 종속되는 청구항과 다른 청구항 범주에 속할 수 없습니다. 종속된 청구항보다 범위가 확장될 수 없습니다. 종속된 청구항에 없는 다른 특징이 포함될 수 없습니다. 의도적으로 다른 청구항의 주제를 참조할 수 없습니다. 종속된 청구항의 일부만 참조할 수 없습니다. 종속항은 2개 이상의 청구항에 종속될 수 있습니다. 종속항이 이전에 설명되지 않은 특징을 공개할 경우 독립항은 이 특징을 설명해야 하거나 종속항이 먼저 이 특징을 설명해야 합니다.   제조방법이 기재된 물건발명 청구항 새로운 제조방법으로 생산되었다고 해서 제조방법이 기재된 물건발명 청구항(Product by Process Claim)이 새로운 것은 아닙니다. 참신성 및 독창성 단계는 제품 자체의 특징을 통해 결정됩니다.   특징 제품 청구항에는 제품 특징이, 제조방법 청구항에는 제조방법 특징이 포함되어야 합니다.   청구항의대안 청구항은 ”및/또는”과 같은 대안 양식을 언급할 수 있지만 각 대안은 동일한 기본 속성을 갖고 있어야 합니다. 하나의 대안은 다른 대안을 대체할 수 있습니다.   두 부분으로 구성된 양식의 청구항(선호되는 양식) 첫 번째 부분: 앞부분은 이전 기술을 통해 알려진 해당 발명의 기술적 특징으로 구성됩니다. 두 번째 부분: 이전 기술과 구별되는 본 발명의 기술적 특징으로 보호가 필요한 부분입니다. 간이 특허의 경우 모든 (실체가 있는) 제품 청구항과 그의 종속항은 두 부분으로 나뉘어진 양식으로 작성해야 합니다.   청구항의 그림, 그래프 및 참조 청구항에는 그림이나 그래프가 포함될 수 없지만 표와 수학 공식은 포함될 수 있습니다. 보다 명확한 설명을 위해 그림을 참조하는 표기를 추가할 수 있고 이 표기는 괄호( ) 안에 일관되게 작성해야 합니다.   청구항의 매개 변수 매개 변수는 직접 측정할 수 있는 제품의 속성을 나타내는 값입니다. 본 발명을 다른 방법을 사용해서 설명할 수 없는 경우를 제외하고는 매개 변수만 사용해서 제품의 특징을 설명하는 것은 허용되지 않습니다. 측정 방법: 청구항에서 설명하기에 너무 깁니다. 해당 기술을 갖춘 당사자는 일반적으로 사용되는 방법이 한 가지이기 때문에 사용할 방법이 무엇인지 알고 있습니다. 모든 측정 방법은 동일한 결과를 산출합니다.   일관성 청구항 작성은 현재형 또는 과거 분사형 사용, 능동태 또는 수동태 사용과 같이 하나의 특징과 다른 특징 간에 일관되어야 합니다. 청구항은 설명과 일관되어야 합니다. 설명에는 청구항과 동일한 제한적 특징이 포함되어 있어야 합니다. 설명에서 하나의 특징이 본 발명에 필수적이라고 기술할 경우 언급된 특징은 독립항에 포함되어야 합니다. 설명의 일부 실시가 청구항에 포함되지 않은 경우, 이러한 실시를 포함하도록 청구항이 확장되거나 설명에서 이러한 실시가 삭제될 수 있습니다. 청구항에 사용된 모든 용어는 설명과 일관되어야 하며, 모든 일반적이지 않은 용어는 설명에 정의되어야 합니다.   수정 사항 수정 사항으로 (주제를 추가하여) 발명의 범위를 넓힐 수는 없지만 공개 내용을 명확하게 하려는 경우에는 허용될 수 있습니다.   통일성 발명은 동일한 공통 발명 개념을 가져야 합니다.다음 독립항의 조합에 대해 발명의 통일성을 고려할 수 있습니다: a. 제품 청구항, 해당 제품의 제조에 대해 특별히 사용되는 제조방법 청구항 b. 제조방법 청구항 및 해당 제조방법을 수행하도록 특별히 설계된 장비/장치 청구항 c. 제품 청구항, 해당 제품을 제조하는 데 특별히 사용되는 제조방법 청구항, 그리고 해당 제품에 대해 언급된 제조방법을 수행하도록 특별히 설계된 장비/장치 청구항.   우선권 다음에 대해 우선권이 부여됩니다: a. 파리 협약 또는 WTO 회원국 b. 우선권을 청구하는 신청서(우선권 신청서 제출일로부터 12개월 이내에 제출된 신청서) c. 이전 발명이 인도네시아 출원 신청자가 출원했거나 인도네시아 출원 신청자가 이전 출원 신청자의 정당한 대리인이어야 합니다. d. 이전 발명과 동일한 발명에 대한 출원이어야 합니다. e. 이전 발명이 해당 발명에 대한 첫 번째 출원이어야 합니다. f. 첫 번째 출원이 파리 협약 또는 WTO에 포함된 국가에서 또는 해당 국가에 제출된 것이어야 합니다.   화학분야 제조방법이 기재된 물건발명 청구항 제조방법이 기재된 물건발명 청구항은 제조방법의 특징에 따라 특징지어지는 제품 청구항입니다. 제조방법이 기재된 물건발명 청구항은 다음의 경우에 허용됩니다: 제품의 매개 변수를 사용하여 제품을 설명할 수 없습니다. 해당 제품이 새로운 제품입니다.   매개 변수로 특징지어지는 제품 3.34항에 따르면 제품 청구항은 매개 변수로 특징지어져서는 안 됩니다. 매개 변수는 제품이 다른 수단으로 특징지어질 수 없을 때 제품을 특징짓는 데 사용될 수 있습니다. 나노기술과 같은 특정 분야에서는 제조방법에 따라 특징지어지는 제품의 참신성을 판단하기 위해 최종 제품의 매개 변수 값을 참신성을 판단하는 제한적 특징으로 사용할 수 있습니다.   기능으로 특징지어지는 제품 기능은 참신성 및 독창성 단계를 판단하는 제한적 기능으로 사용할 수 있습니다. 제품이 다른 수단으로 특징지어질 수 없는 경우에 기능이 제한적 기능으로 사용됩니다. 한 가지 예로 제조방법에서의 해당 기능을 통해서만 설명할 수 있는 촉매와 관련된 청구항을 들 수 있습니다.   매개 변수의 측정 청구항이 매개 변수를 공개할 경우 청구항에서 해당 매개 변수를 얻는 데 사용되는 측정 방법을 명확하게 명시해야 합니다. 예를 들어 한 청구항이 MFR(질량 유량)을 매개 변수로 공개하면 불명확한 것으로 간주되는 한편 ISO 1133:2005에서는 질량 측정 방법과 변위 측정 방법이라는 두 가지 MFR 측정 절차를 명시합니다.   생물학분야 미생물 미생물에는 효모, 곰팡이, 박테리아, 방선균이 있습니다. 미생물에는 인간 세포와 식물 세포가 포함됩니다. 명확성: 올바른 명명법으로 특징지어져야 하며, 균주 이름은 종 이름 뒤에 적어야 합니다. 참신성: 새로운 균주는 구체적으로 설명해야 하며, 같은 종의 알려진 균주와의 차이점을 설명해야 합니다. 새로운 종: 분류학 및…

Summary-of-Implementation-Guideline-and-Technical-Guideline-of-Patent-Substantive-Examination-in-Indonesia

Summary of Implementation Guideline and Technical Guideline of Patent Substantive Examination in Indonesia

Patent, Intellectual Property

Summary of Implementation Guideline and Technical Guideline of Patent Substantive Examination in Indonesia TECHNICAL GUIDELINE Patent Substantive Examinations are conducted within 30 months from the application date and will focus on the following points:   DESCRIPTION At Least Should Consist of: a. Description regarding one way to conduct the invention; b. If the description refers to figure, it should use the same reference as used in figures; c. Description on how the invention is implemented in industry; d. Brief description of invention for understanding regarding the invention; e. Mention of technology in closest prior art in the background of invention.   Includes in the Following Order: Technical Field of Invention; Background of Invention; Brief Description of Invention; Brief Description of Drawings (if available); Detailed Description of Invention.   Sufficiency of Disclosure Description should disclose the invention clearly, such that those skilled in the art can implement the said invention. This is so that the public can utilize this invention in return for the right granted to the applicant.  The function of the invention should be disclosed.   Prior Art Background Inventor should state what is considered as the closest prior art in the background of the invention. If the search result finds a closer prior art, the closest prior art should be mentioned in the background of the invention. In mentioning the prior art the background should be fair and honest and should not be misleading.   CLAIMS Product Claims vs Process Claims There are only 2 categories of claim: Product Claims: For a physical entity (object). Products may be a compound, an equipment, a combination of equipment in a system, etc. Product claim cannot be distinguished from prior arts through its method of use. Process Claims: For an activity (method). Processes may be an activity to produce a product, an activity which use a product, or an activity which use an organism as a subject.   Independent vs Dependent Claims Independent Claim consists of all features of the invention which protection is sought . Independent claim does not depend in content on another claim. Dependent Claim consists of all features from independent and/or other dependent claim and has the same category as the claim which it depends on. Dependent Claim cannot: belong to a different claim category than the claim it depends on; be broader than the claim which it depends on; contain other features which are not in the claim it depends on; refer to a subject matter from another claim for intended purpose; and only refer to a part of the claim which it depends on. Dependent Claim can depend on more than 1 claim. If a dependent claim disclose a feature which were not described previously, the independent claim should describe this feature, or the dependent claim must first describe this feature.   Product by Process Claims Product by process claim is not novel just because it is produced by a novel process. Its novelty and inventive step are determined through its own product features.   Feature Product claim should contain product features, process claim should contain process features.   Alternative in Claims Claim may refer to alternative forms ”and/or”, but each alternative should have the same basic properties. One alternative must be able to replace another.   Two Parts Form Claim (Preferable Form) First Part: Preamble consisting of technical features of said invention that is known from previous technology. Second Part: Technical features of invention which distinguish the invention from the previous technology and which protection is sought. For simple patent, all (tangible) product claim and the dependent claim thereof should be written in two parts form.   Figures and Graphs and References in Claims Claims cannot contain figures or graphs, but may contain tables and mathematical formulas. For clarity, notation which refers to figures may be added and should be written uniformly between brackets ( ).   Parameters in Claims Parameters are values which are properties of a product that can be measured directly. Characterization of product using only parameters are not allowed unless the invention is unable to be described using other means. Method of measurement: Too long to be described in the claim; Those skilled in the art know which method to use, because there is only one method commonly used; All measurement methods yield in the same result.   Consistency Writing of claims should be consistent between one feature to another, e.g.. using present or past participle, using active or passive voice. Claims should be consistent with the description. The description should contain the same limiting features as the claims. If the description states that one feature is essential for the invention, said feature must be included in the independent claim. If some embodiments in the description are not included in the claims, the claims may be broaden to include these embodiments or these embodiment may be deleted from the description. All terms used in claims should be consistent with the description, all uncommon terms should be defined in the description.   AMENDMENT Amendment cannot broaden the scope of the invention (by adding a subject matter), but may be allowed if it is intended to clarify the disclosure.   UNITY Invention should have the same common inventive concept. Unity of invention can be considered for the following combination of independent claims: a. Product claim, process claim which is specifically used for the manufacture of said product; b. Process claim and equipment/apparatus claim which is specifically designed to conduct said process; and c. Product claim, process claim which is specifically used to manufacture said product and equipment/apparatus claim which is specifically designed to conduct said manufacturing process of said product.   PRIORITY Priority rights are granted for the following: a. Paris convention or WTO member countries; b. Applications claiming priority which is filed within 12 months since the filing date of the priority application; c. Previous invention should have been filed by applicant of Indonesian application, or Indonesian applicant should be a rightful surrogate of the applicant of the previous application;…

The-Importance-of-Artificial-Intelligence-Act-AIA-in-the-European-Union-affa-global

The Importance of Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) in the European Union

Intellectual Property

The Importance of Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) in the European Union In the previous article, we discussed how AI could violate Intellectual Property, and several countries have prepared regulations to deal with it. This article will discuss the importance of AIA in the European Union for fighting the Infringement of Intellectual Property based on AI.   The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, the EU’s legislative bodies, were negotiating the law’s final text. The aim was to agree on the AIA by the end of 2023.   AIA is very relevant for Intellectual Property infringement in many ways: 1. The AIA requires AI providers to be transparent about how their systems work. This could make it easier for IP owners to identify and track down AI systems that are infringing on their rights. For example, if an AI system is used to create counterfeit goods, the AIA could require the provider of the AI system to disclose information about the training data that was used to create the system. This information could then be used by IP owners to identify the source of the counterfeit goods.   2. The AIA requires AI providers to take steps to mitigate the risk of IP infringement. This could include measures such as using watermarks or other techniques to protect IP-protected content from being used by AI systems without permission. For example, an AI system that is used to create images could be programmed to detect and remove watermarks.   3. The AIA provides enforcement mechanisms against AI providers that infringe IP rights. This could include fines, injunctions, and other measures. For example, if an AI provider is found to be infringing IP rights, the AIA could allow the IP owner to seek an injunction to prevent the provider from continuing to use the AI system.   Overall, the AIA is a significant step forward in the fight against IP infringement using AI. By requiring AI providers to be transparent, to take steps to mitigate the risk of IP infringement, and to comply with enforcement mechanisms, the AIA could help to protect IP rights in the EU.   Here are some specific examples of how the AIA could be used to address IP infringement: An AI system that is used to create images could be programmed to detect and remove watermarks. This would make it more difficult for counterfeiters to use the AI system to create fake images. An AI system that is used to translate text could be programmed to identify and remove copyrighted content. This would make it more difficult for people to use the AI system to infringe copyright by translating copyrighted works without permission. An AI system that is used to generate music could be programmed to identify and remove copyrighted melodies. This would make it more difficult for people to use the AI system to infringe copyright by generating music that sounds similar to copyrighted works.   The AIA is still in the early stages of development, but it has the potential to be a powerful tool for protecting IP rights in the EU. As the AIA is finalized and implemented, it will be interesting to see how it is used to address IP infringement in a variety of contexts.   If you need further information regarding the registration and protection of Intellectual Property in Indonesia and abroad, don’t hesitate to contact us via [email protected]. Sources: IBM Artificial Intelligence Act

The-IP-Valuation-Practice-In-Indonesia-affa-global

The IP Valuation Practice in Indonesia

Intellectual Property

The IP Valuation Practice in Indonesia Measuring the value of Intellectual Property (IP) as an effort to protect intellectual works is a challenging matter. Often, the calculations carried out only partially reflect the true potential of these intellectual assets. For example, is the amount of royalties received an absolute assessment factor? Is the originality factor more valuable than novelty? Or does the closer the protection period gets to the end, the less valuable the IP will be?   Considering that this valuation is also essential in providing credit, where the Government is encouraging the provision of banking credit to Intellectual Property owners to drive the national economy, in December 2023, the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) as a research institution that has a lot of contact with IPs has held a “Kick Off The Role of Intellectual Property Valuators in Utilizing Research and Innovation Results.” This activity was held in collaboration with the Ministry of Law and Human Rights and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).   Benefits of Intellectual Property Valuation IP valuation is beneficial if you carry out the following activities: Merger and Acquisition Sale and/or Purchase Litigation/Seeking Damages in Settlement Balance Sheet Reporting (Financial Report) Price Purchase Allocation IP Financing: Taking IP as Collateral Licensing & Identifying Worth of IP Portfolio Franchising (Initial Franchising Fee/Royalty)   SPI 320 – Basis Valuation for Intangible Assets In the previous article, we explained how the National Collective Management Organization (LKMN) can actively assist appraisals and intermediaries if there is a default on Copyright-based credit. However, for Copyrights and other IPs as identifiable intangible assets, Indonesia has Indonesian Valuation Standards (SPI), which must be used as a reference for all appraisers carrying out appraisal activities in Indonesia. This mandatory nature is regulated in the Indonesian Appraiser Code of Ethics (KEPI). SPI is determined by the Indonesian Appraisal Professional Organization, better known as the Indonesian Appraisal Professional Society (MAPPI), and is based on the 2013 version of the International Valuation Standards (IVS) issued by the IVS Council, which is headquartered in London, England.   Classification of Intangible Assets Based on SPI 320 1. Marketing-Related Intangible Assets Intangible assets associated with marketing activities contribute to a company’s ability to attract customers, enhance brand recognition, and generate revenue. E.g., Trademarks, Industrial Designs, and Domain Names.   2. Customer-Related Intangible Assets Intangible assets that are associated with a company’s existing customer base and contribute to its ability to generate revenue and maintain customer loyalty. These assets are valuable because they represent the relationships and interactions a company has established with its customers over time. E.g., Customer Lists, Licensing Agreements, and Trade Secrets such as Customer Databases and Exclusive Customer Agreements.   3. Artistic-Related Intangible Assets Intangible assets that are associated with creative works and expressions, including copyrights for original literary and artistic creations, trademarks protecting unique brand identifiers, design patents for distinctive visual designs, and patents covering inventive artistic processes. These assets are vital for safeguarding and commercializing artistic endeavors.   4. Contract-Related Intangible Assets Non-physical assets arising from contractual agreements, embodying legal rights and obligations. These intangibles often derive from contracts like licensing agreements, franchise agreements, or customer contracts, holding considerable value for a business. Examples include licensing rights for a popular software product, a franchise agreement granting exclusive rights, or a customer contract securing ongoing revenue streams.   5. Technology-Related Intangible Assets Non-physical assets tied to technological innovations, provide businesses with a competitive edge. These assets often result from research and development efforts, patents, or proprietary technologies. Examples include patented inventions, software algorithms, or proprietary manufacturing processes. Effective management and protection of these assets are vital for companies operating in technology-driven industries, ensuring they maintain exclusivity and market leadership in their innovations.   6. In-Process Research and Development/IPR&D Intangible Assets Ongoing research and development projects that have yet to reach completion or commercialization. These assets are valuable for companies anticipating future innovations and technological advancements. IPR&D assets may include unreleased products, prototypes, or projects in various stages of development.    Factors Considered by the Appraiser: 1. Rights, privileges, or conditions attached to Ownership Rights. Ownership rights can be expressed in various legal documents. In legal jurisdictions, this document is usually called a Patent, Trademark, Copyright, know-how, database, etc. Rights owners are bound by documents that record their rights to Intangible Assets. The rights and conditions are contained in the agreement or exchange of correspondence, and these rights may or may not be transferred to the new owner of the rights. 2. Remaining economic and/or legal life (validity period) of Intangible Assets. Suppose the Income Approach is used for Intangible Assets. In that case, the Prospective Financial Information period must be the same as the Remaining Useful Life of the Intangible Asset that is the object of the assessment. If the Market Approach is used, the comparison object period is comparable and similar to the Remaining Useful Life of the Intangible Asset, which is the object of assessment. If the cost approach is used, the Remaining Useful Life is used to calculate the obsolescence of the Intangible Asset, which is the object of assessment. The factors used in measuring the Remaining Useful Life of Intangible Assets are based on, among others: a. Legal Life; Derived from the life of a Patent, Trademark, or Copyright, which provides legal protection from competition.   b. Contractual Life; Derived from the age of the agreement with the customer, franchise agreement, rental agreement, or other agreement between the assignor and a third party.   c. Physical Determinants; The remaining useful life of intangible assets is calculated based on the physical condition of tangible assets, which are an inseparable part of intangible assets.   d, Economic Life; Economic Life can be obtained through: 1. Multiperiod Excess Earnings Method (MEEM); In this method, the appraiser must first calculate the decay factor. The decay factor can be obtained using the exponential total life divided by the negative Remaining Useful Life. 2. Convention Method. In this method, the appraiser must reveal…

Prospects-for-Using-Intellectual-Property-as-Collateral-in-Indonesia-affa-global

Prospects for Using Intellectual Property as Collateral in Indonesia

Intellectual Property

Prospects for Using Intellectual Property as Collateral in Indonesia The consequence of Indonesia’s participation as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is to take essential steps, including harmonizing the legal regulations in the field of Intellectual Property (IP) with the provisions of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement.   This includes following developments in global regulations, where IP is one of the accesses to obtain banking credit internationally. It is noted that IP, such as Copyrights, Patents, and Trademarks, have become a common source of banking financing in foreign countries. This makes it easier for business people with products and/or services protected by IP law to access bank credit for capital to develop their business.   Regulation v Implementation in Indonesia Since 2022, the Government has stipulated Government Regulation Number 24 of 2022 concerning Implementing Regulations of Law Number 24 of 2019 concerning Creative Economy. This confirms that IP can be pledged as collateral for financing from banks and non-bank financial institutions. This regulation has only been implemented since July 12, 2023.   However, Melly Goeslaw, a singer and songwriter who has composed more than 600 songs, in her interview with Najwa Shihab, an Indonesian Senior Journalist, on the Mata Najwa podcast, which was released on the YouTube channel on January 16, 2024, admitted that her songs still cannot be applied for as loans at the bank. With the popularity of her songs, such as “Bunda” (1997) and “Ayat-Ayat Cinta” (2009), she still feels worried that she will not be able to support her children and provide them with a promising future if she is no longer productive. That’s why she proposed herself as a legislative candidate for the 2024-2029 House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia, hoping that existing regulations can be implemented comprehensively.   The same thing was expressed by Mira Lesmana, producer of blockbuster films such as “Petualangan Sherina” (2000) and “Ada Apa dengan Cinta?” (2002). Her work as Intellectual Property has indeed been recognized, but it cannot be used as collateral to the bank. It is easier to sell than to be used as collateral. Luckily, non-bank funding institutions already understand the value of a film, so they don’t need to sell or relinquish ownership of their old IP to get fresh funds to make new films because quality films cannot be made with a low budget.   The Concept of IP as a Collateral Object in the Fiduciary Guarantee System In Article 1, paragraph (1) of Law No. 42. 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees, Fiduciary means transferring ownership rights to an object based on trust, provided that the object whose ownership rights are transferred remains in the control of the object’s owner. Meanwhile, a Fiduciary Guarantee is a security right for movable objects, tangible and intangible, and immovable objects, especially buildings that cannot be burdened with Mortgage Rights.   From a legal aspect, Intellectual Property as Fiduciary Guarantee is regulated by the following legislation: Copyright Law Article 16 Paragraph 3 Copyright can be used as an object of fiduciary guarantee. Patent Law Article 108 Patent rights can be used as an object of fiduciary guarantee.   For Industrial Design, the regulations are still in the form of an amendment, where Article 62 of the Industrial Design Bill states that Industrial Design can be used as an object of fiduciary guarantee. However, just like Trademarks, Trade Secrets, and other IP regimes, which are identifiable intangible assets, they can be categorized as objects of fiduciary collateral.   Conditions for IPs as Fiduciary Guarantee For Intellectual Property to be used as collateral or fiduciary guarantee, 2 (two) conditions must be met, namely: Has been recorded or registered with the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) as indicated by possession of a Certificate of Recordation for Copyright or Certificate of Registration for other Intellectual Property; It has been managed independently, and/or the rights have been transferred to another party, as indicated by proof of use or a License Agreement document.   Obstacles in the Field Seeing the high growth in IP recordation and registration, if this regulation is implemented, interest in applying for IP as collateral will also be increased. However, as stated at the beginning, rejection still occurs a lot. Why?   Because if we talk about providing bank credit to debtors, there is always the potential for bad credit/failure to pay. So, to anticipate this risk, banks generally require debtors to provide credit collateral with a definite execution value to get the total return value. In practice, collateral such as land or buildings with much potential interest takes work to get buyers at the expected value. As a result, without further understanding the economic value of IPs, calculating the credit that can be granted becomes increasingly complex, and IPs are only considered as additional collateral guarantees.   Considering that there are still many other factors that are pretty complex in assessing an IP, it is felt necessary for these institutions to collaborate with other institutions that are not only able to calculate the valuation of IP assets but also legal audits that must understand the validity period, cancellation status and ownership (who is suitable to be given credit), as has been practiced abroad, including Singapore.   Solutions for Intellectual Property Valuation Even though there is no particular institution for valuing IP assets in Indonesia, there are already institutions that can be further empowered to assess and even help with payments in the event of bad credit. Here are some examples that can be applied:   Empowering National Collective Management Organization (LMKN) for Copyrights To facilitate the assessment of Copyright, especially music and songs, the Government and bank and non-bank financial institutions need to maximize the role and function of the LMKN, which has been established since 2014. By involving LMKN, bank and non-bank financial institutions can increasingly be confident in making music and songs as fiduciary guarantees. So far, LMKN has been tasked with collecting and distributing royalties for music and…

AI-A-Threat-to-Our-Intellectual-Property

AI: A Threat to Our Intellectual Property?

Patent, Intellectual Property, Copyright

AI: A Threat to Our Intellectual Property? AI is a branch of computer science that deals with creating intelligent agents, which are systems that can reason, learn, and act autonomously. AI research has been highly successful in developing effective techniques for solving a wide range of problems, from self-driving cars, medical diagnosis, product recommendations, creating articles or songs based on voice collections, and processing very realistic images.   The sophistication of AI also makes the operation of an application no longer need to be done manually. For example, not by carrying out a series of actions or commands via menu clicks but simply by writing down the command, the AI will carry out the operation automatically. However, this sophistication is open to controversy because the basis of AI’s capabilities comes from a collection of data taken without permission from what is already available on the internet. This is undoubtedly dangerous for Intellectual Property.   In general, AI can harm Intellectual Property in the following 3 (three) ways:   1. AI Can Copy Your Work AI can be trained on a massive dataset of text, images, and code. This means that it can learn to reproduce your work, even if you have taken steps to protect it, such as copyrighting it.   2. AI Can Create Derivative Works AI can be used to create new works based on your original work. For example, an AI could be used to create a new painting based on your existing painting.   3. AI Can Use Your Work Without Attribution AI can be used to create new works that do not give you credit for your original work. This can happen if the AI is not properly trained or if the person using the AI does not understand the importance of attribution.   Recognizing the potential for Intellectual Property infringement that AI-based applications can carry, several countries have taken steps to prevent further disputes. Some of these countries are Japan and the European Union.   AI Copyright Protection for Japanese Artists Agency for Cultural Affairs Government of Japan) on May 30th, the statement “Regarding the relationship between AI and copyright” divides AI use into two stages: First Stage AI can be used for research and education purposes without requiring Copyright permission, but this has limitations if it exceeds recognized necessary limits or harms the Copyright holder’s interests.  Second Stage If AI-generated works are published or sold as reproductions and infringe Copyright laws, the Copyright holder has the right to take legal action, potentially leading to criminal penalties.   The document emphasizes strict penalties for Copyright Infringement through AI-generated works that are almost identical or clearly dependent on existing copyrighted works. Japan plans to raise awareness about these issues through seminars and collaborate with legal experts to proactively regulate commercial AI and protect the copyrighted works of Japanese artists and creators.   This approach signifies Japan’s commitment to shield copyrighted creative work, data, and materials from commercial AI use, potentially impacting AI developers and users aiming to exploit stolen art and creative works for profit. The move marks a potential turning point in the fight against Copyright Infringement by AI, providing more vital protection for artists’ Intellectual Property.   In the next article, we will discuss The Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) the European Union’s draft for AI regulation related to the protection of Intellectual Property.   If you need further information regarding the registration and protection of Intellectual Property in Indonesia and abroad, don’t hesitate to contact us via [email protected]. Sources: IBM PC Watch