Abstract
Throughout the course of patent law development, compulsory licence has been one of the most discussed topics around the world. Recently, Crown use or government use in the Commonwealth countries has drawn much attention and became an important addition to the discussion. This chapter first looks into the legislative history and provisions in both the U.K. and the U.S. and further introduces some landmark case laws in these two countries that shape the rules respectively. The Crown use in the U.K. has played a vital role in the line of development of this legal concept. The U.S. embodies a similar rule known as government use in 28 USC §1498. In the conclusion, this chapter differentiates Crown use from government use and finds that the legal theories supporting the rules are different and the U.S. is much more relaxed in terms of the scope of use and method recognised for authorisation; this chapter also points out the procedural difference between the civil law compulsory licence and the Crown use and government use.
C.C. Yang is Assistant Professor.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
For more details concerning Thailand, Taiwan, and Latin America, see the chapters “Compulsory Licences: Law and Practice in Thailand” by Jakkrit Kuanpoth; “Compulsory Licence and Government Use in Taiwan: A Regress” Kung-Chung Liu; and “The Use of Compulsory Licences in Latin America” by Carlos M. Correa, in this volume.
- 2.
Brand (2007), p. 218.
- 3.
See Id.
- 4.
Feather v. The Queen, 6 Best and Smith 257, 1865, and affirmed in Dixon v. The London Small Arms Company Limited, L.R. 1 App. Cas. 632.
- 5.
1883 Patents, Design and Trade Marks Act, S.27.
- 6.
Brand (2007), p. 218.
- 7.
1883 Patents, Design and Trade Marks Act, S.22.
- 8.
Crawford Munro (1884).
- 9.
Cornish (2004), p. 26.
- 10.
See Feather v. The Queen, 6 Best and Smith 257, at 265.
- 11.
See Id. at 283.
- 12.
de Carvalho (2010), pp. 428–429.
- 13.
Wallace (1884).
- 14.
Dixon v. The London Small Arms Company 1 Q.B.D. 384, (1876).
- 15.
The Patents and Design Acts, 1907, S. 29–30.
- 16.
Id, Art. 30: (1) The inventor of any improvement in instruments or munitions of war may (either for or without valuable consideration) assign to the Secretary of State for War or the Admiralty on behalf of His Majesty all the benefit of the inventions and of any patent obtained or to be obtained for the invention; and the Secretary of State or the Admiralty may be a party to the assignment.
- 17.
Pfizer Corporation Appellants; v Ministry of Health Respondents 1965 case 2 W.L.R. 387.
- 18.
Dory v Sheffield Health Authority, 1991 F.S.R. 221.
- 19.
MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd and others, Chancery Division (Patents Court), 2009 EWHC 1938 (Pat).
- 20.
Lee (2003), pp. 175, 182.
- 21.
Yosick (2001), p. 1276.
- 22.
Lee (2003), p. 182.
- 23.
Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 1990.
- 24.
Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Com’n, 655 F.3d 1337, 2011.
- 25.
H.R.Rep. No. 61-1288, at 1, 1910.
- 26.
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank and United States, 527 U.S. 627, 1999.
- 27.
Miller (2010–2011), pp. 2–3.
- 28.
Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fed. Res. Bank, 583 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2009).
- 29.
Reese (2006–07), p. 117.
- 30.
Cotter (1998), pp. 535–536.
- 31.
Id.
- 32.
Zoltek v. U.S., 442 F.3d 1345, 2006.
- 33.
Schillinger v. U.S., 155 U.S. 163, 1894.
- 34.
See Zoltek v. U.S. 442 F.3d 1345, 2006.
- 35.
Richard Screw Anchor v. United States, 275 US 343, 1928.
- 36.
See Schillinger v. U.S., 155 U.S. 163, 1894.
- 37.
Molinaro v. Watkins-Johnson Cel Division, 359 F.Supp. 474 (1973).
- 38.
Rushing (2012), pp. 883–886.
- 39.
TVI Energy Corporation v. Milton C. Blane and Blane Enterprises, Inc., 806 F.2d 1057, 1986.
- 40.
Leesona Corp. v. U. S., 220 Ct.Cl. 234, 1979.
- 41.
Lee (2003) at 186–88.
- 42.
de Carvalho (2010), p. 428.
References
Brand O (2007) The dawn of compulsory patent licensing. IPQ 2:218
Cornish WR (2004) Intellectual property-omnipresent, distracting, irrelevant? Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 26
Cotter TF (1998) Do federal uses of intellectual property implicate the fifth amendment? Florida Law Rev 50(529):535–536
Crawford Munro JE (1884) The Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883, with rules and instructions. http://archive.org/stream/patentsdesignsa01britgoog#page/n106/mode/2up. Last visited 25 Oct 2013
de Carvalho NP (2010) The trips regime of patent rights, 3rd edn. Kluwer, Amsterdam, pp 428–429
Lee KW (2003) Permitted use of patented inventions in the United States: why prescription drugs do not merit compulsory licensing. Ind Law Rev 36(175):182
Miller JI (2010–2011) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(A) and the unconstitutional taking of patents. Yale J Law Technol 13(1):2–3
Reese BE (2006–2007) Do as i say, not as i do: an international and comparative study of governments’ rights to “Infringe” patents in light of the Federal Circuit’s recent interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1498 and a call for congress to modernize the statute. Buffalo Intellect Prop Law J 4:84, 117
Rushing S (2012) Plugging the leak in §1498: coercing the United States into notifying patent owners of government use. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 45(879):883–886
Wallace R (1884) The Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1884, with introductory chapter, explanatory notes and decided cases. http://archive.org/stream/patentsdesignsa00britgoog#page/n128/mode/2up. Last visited 10/8/2013
Yosick J (2001) Compulsory patent licensing for efficient use of inventions. Univ Illinois Law Rev 1276
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yang, C.C. (2015). Crown Use and Government Use. In: Hilty, R., Liu, KC. (eds) Compulsory Licensing. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 22. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54704-1_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54704-1_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54703-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54704-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)