Book contents
- 3D Printing and Intellectual Property
- Reviews
- 3D Printing and Intellectual Property
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- 1 3D Printing Technology’s Capabilities and Effects
- 2 How 3D Printing Works and Why it Matters
- 3 Primer on Intellectual Property Law
- 4 Can You Patent a 3D Printable File? (and Why it Matters)
- 5 Patents – Direct Infringement, Individual Infringement, and “Digital” Infringement
- 6 Patents – Indirect Infringement and Intermediaries
- 7 3D Printing and Trademarks: The Dissociation Between Design and Manufacturing
- 8 Creativity and Utility: 3D Printable Files and the Boundary Between Copyright and Patent Protection
- 9 Design Rights, Tangibility, and Free Expression
- 10 DMFs and Optimizing Innovation Incentives
- Conclusion
- Index
4 - Can You Patent a 3D Printable File? (and Why it Matters)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 July 2019
- 3D Printing and Intellectual Property
- Reviews
- 3D Printing and Intellectual Property
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- 1 3D Printing Technology’s Capabilities and Effects
- 2 How 3D Printing Works and Why it Matters
- 3 Primer on Intellectual Property Law
- 4 Can You Patent a 3D Printable File? (and Why it Matters)
- 5 Patents – Direct Infringement, Individual Infringement, and “Digital” Infringement
- 6 Patents – Indirect Infringement and Intermediaries
- 7 3D Printing and Trademarks: The Dissociation Between Design and Manufacturing
- 8 Creativity and Utility: 3D Printable Files and the Boundary Between Copyright and Patent Protection
- 9 Design Rights, Tangibility, and Free Expression
- 10 DMFs and Optimizing Innovation Incentives
- Conclusion
- Index
Summary
Chapter 4 analyzes the doctrine of patentable subject matter. Delving into American, European, and Japanese patent jurisprudence, it first describes how these legal systems handle software-related inventions in general. Next, it applies that jurisprudence to 3D printable files to demonstrate why only one of the three 3D printing file formats is likely to constitute patentable subject matter. More intriguingly, it turns out that this file format is of least interest to would-be patent holders. In other words, a patent protection gap exists. Chapter 4 also analyzes jurisdictions’ differential treatment of patent claims directed to electronic signals. The Japanese and European patent systems consider these claims to be patentable subject matter, whereas the U.S. system does not. The upshot is that patent protection for software and 3D printable files is weaker in the United States because most 3D printable files are sold as internet signal transmissions. I argue that the United States should provide protection for signal claims.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- 3D Printing and Intellectual Property , pp. 60 - 81Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019