Skip to main content
Added summarized explanation.
Source Link
the Europeist
  • 2.3k
  • 1
  • 6
  • 11

You have a relevant discussion about this topic here. It refers to the European patent practice but could be valid for many other jurisdictions.

Pretty much, the novelty requirement is meant to avoid 2+ patents on the same subject-matter in a same jurisdiction, otherwise a third party will have to get 2+ licenses for the very same subject-matter, which is unfair given that they are for the same invention. By limiting the novelty requirement to patents and patent applications of a same jurisdiction you could have the same monopoly in the respective jurisdiction and somewhere else, and that somewhere else is not a problem because the third party needs the license per jurisdiction.

You have a relevant discussion about this topic here. It refers to the European patent practice but could be valid for many other jurisdictions.

You have a relevant discussion about this topic here. It refers to the European patent practice but could be valid for many other jurisdictions.

Pretty much, the novelty requirement is meant to avoid 2+ patents on the same subject-matter in a same jurisdiction, otherwise a third party will have to get 2+ licenses for the very same subject-matter, which is unfair given that they are for the same invention. By limiting the novelty requirement to patents and patent applications of a same jurisdiction you could have the same monopoly in the respective jurisdiction and somewhere else, and that somewhere else is not a problem because the third party needs the license per jurisdiction.

Source Link
the Europeist
  • 2.3k
  • 1
  • 6
  • 11

You have a relevant discussion about this topic here. It refers to the European patent practice but could be valid for many other jurisdictions.