Modular Design and Prefabrication Solutions: Realising Patent Value - Dissertation Example

? Modular Design and Prefabrication Solutions: Realising Patent Value Introduction According to the Oxford dictionary, a patent refers to a licence, which is awarded to an individual or organisation, by a government body, to assert the person’s right to deter others from making, selling or using an invention. As more and more inventions occur each day, the government saw it fit to enact patent laws to prevent or reduce cases of conflict between persons regarding the production and utilisation of an object. Patents are internationally recognized as intellectual properties held by a person, which allows rights to be bestowed upon a single individual internationally. Ideally, patents are granted to inventors or to their assignees for a set duration of time and they require that the inventor publicises the invention. International agreements offer a bridge between different countries’ patent laws and protect inventors from global competition. For instance, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) established the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) to protect inventors in its member countries. This institution mainly focuses on invention in the industrial sector. The WTO provides for international harmonization of patents among different nations. For instance, under article 33 of the WTO TRIPs agreement, the protection duration for all patents is a minimum of twenty years. This offers an international benchmark for exemplifying the term of a patent (Bettig, 2003). Patents have been in existence for the last few centuries beginning in Sybaris, a Greek city in 500 BC, where national leaders offered encouragement to those who invented refinements in luxury. Here, patents were awarded for one year, and all revenue emanating from the invented object was bestowed upon the inventor. In England, the first patent was awarded in the mid-fifteenth century by King Henry VI in favour of John of Utynam for his invention of how to make coloured glass. This first patent was covered for a period of twenty years. However, modern patent laws heralded in 1474, in Venice where a decree was passed requiring public announcements of new and inventive objects put into practiced in order to deter others from using the object. England, under the rule of King James I, followed suit in 1624 by establishing the statute of monopolies, which asserted that only projects of new inventions could be awarded patents (Sherman & Bently, 1999). Different types of patents exist in different nations globally. Business method patents protect the ideas of new ways of conducting business, computer program patents or software patents cover inventions of computer programs and applications, industrial design patents protect inventions of visual, industrial objects, etc. Under the WTO, patents should be awarded to individuals for a period of at least twenty years, during the course of which the inventor receives full profits from the invention. In earlier days, grants referred to as letters of patent were made by monarchs pursuant to royal privileges. The word “patent” emanates from the Latin word “patere”, which means to lay open; making available to the public. Principal Ingredients to Achieve a UK Patent As earlier noted, the patent laws required differ from one nation to another. The UK has its own unique requirements for patents, but also shares some international ones provided under the WTO (WICO, 2003). Under UK law, patents are protected under the Patent Act, 1977, which was established by the then parliament and enacted by the Queen of England to institute new laws of patents that would be appropriate for future applications and give mandate to some international laws on patents. Under this law, a clear definition of patent is offered, as well as ingredients to achieve UK patents. The chief ingredients include, first, speak to the nature of patentable inventions. In order to achieve a UK patent, the invention has to fulfil certain guidelines. First, the invention must be new, meaning that no patent is granted upon manufacturers of already existing items and for ideas that were previously patented. The invention has to also entail an inventive move, here; the law asserts that no patent shall be bestowed on accidental inventions or actions that are obvious to a skilled person. In order to achieve a patent, the invention has to be applicable to the industrial setting; inventions that cannot be applied by others are hugely ignorable. An applicable invention is deemed as one that can be utilized by any industry, including agriculture (Dratler, 1991). In addition, patents are grantable to inventions, where utilized material from an already granted patent published after the former patent was already awarded. However, such a patent can only be awarded if the material used in the new invention was taken from the initial patent, as it was filed and published under law. Using material that was not published is considered a breach of law and is punishable. Moreover, a patent can only be awarded if the priority date of material used is beforehand the priority date of the invention. Another key ingredient of patents is the priority date, which is essentially the date, in which an application was filed. In regards to the priority date, in order to achieve a UK patent, a public declaration must be made by the inventor or its assignee in the course of one year starting from the date of application or if the comptroller gives permission for late declaration. Patents are also achievable upon discourse of matter in both new inventions and ones that use existing material from other patents. A patent that uses material from a previously granted patent must disclose all the information pertaining the application of material in the old patent. Non-disclosure is considered as an infringement on one’s right to receive a patent. Patents are also achievable upon the inventor, either individual or as a partnership or assignee by them offering their name to the comptroller for filing. When reference is, made to the effect that a partnership between inventors resulted in the creation, the application for a patent must include all the partners’ names and other relevant information. However, the comptroller may opt to deny patent grant if the material disclosed in a question relates to a question asked by either party in the partnership with regard to matter contained in the application. Patents are also obtained through transfer; if the inventor or its assignee gives directions to transfer the patent to another individual, then the comptroller has the mandate to freshly assign the patent to the receiving individual. However, transfer or assignment of a patent can only be done during the patent application process. If a patent is already declared to an entity and it is published, then no transfer can be enforced. Under section 19(3B), Registered Designs Act 1949, an assignment of invention’s design right, in writing, is considered as an assignment of the registered design, as well (Durham, 1999). Under section 30, (6), of the 1977 Patents Act assignment of a patent was only deemed lawful if effected by all parties involved which may include the inventor(s) and the assignee. However, amendments now allow for validity of patent assignment by the assignee or mortgagor only (section 10, Regulatory Reform (Patents) Order 2004 (SI 2004/2357). Under the 2004 UK patent law, key constituents of a patent application include the provision of the applicant’s name and address of place of incorporation in the event that the inventor is a company. The inventor must also provide his citizenship, a title for his invention and a brief description or abstract regarding the invention. Design specifications and descriptions must also be offered to allow for grant of patent. This description should encompass clear, formal drawings of the invention, where applicable, as well as a statement of innovation showing the process taken to arrive at the invention. If the application is made in a language other than English, a grace period of two months is offered to submission of an English translation of the application showing specifications of the invention. A priority document, which shows the invention’s priority number and nation of origin, must also be availed. Claims to an invention should be provided in the form of a written letter, which is filed by the comptroller to deter others from applying for patents of the same idea or object. For a patent to be issued, the applicant (either the inventor or assignee) must provide a power of attorney, showing the willingness of the applicant to abide by state patent laws. In addition, a power of attorney is required if the name(s) and other details of the inventor(s) and applicant differ. A written explanation regarding how the applicant gained rights to the application must be offered. Another ingredient for achieving a UK patent is substantive examination, which is requested by the applicant within six months from the date of application publication, but after at least eighteen months from the priority date given. A search request must also be submitted to the comptroller failure to do so will result in immediate cancellation of an application and patent will not be granted. Annuity payments or renewal or maintenance fees have to be paid to achieve renewal of patent where patent had already been granted. In addition, annuity payments must also be made for patent applications that are pending on account of the applicant’s inadequacy to meet patent guidelines. Annuities are payable on an annual basis from the fifth year. It is paramount to note that while patents are issued for new inventions and ideas, the following are not construed as inventions according to the patent act of 1977. These include discoveries, theories of a scientific nature, mathematical methods, aesthetic creations of a musical, dramatic or literary nature, methods of conducting mental acts such as playing a game and the production and management of information. In addition, patent cannot be granted for inventions, which are seen as contravening public policy or moral standing of the society. However, with regard to public policy, a patent cannot be disapproved if it only impacts public policy and morality protected under any UK law. Value of a Patent as Compared to Design Copyright Design refers to the physical appearance of a product in terms of its colour, texture, ornamentation, shape and other physical parameters. In order for a design to be construed as new, it has to offer an entirely different impression from that of any other design in existence. Essentially, designs can be protected under three distinctive parameters. These are unregistered design rights, registered designs and copyright. Typically, an inventor of a design owns all rights to it, with the exemption of designs commissioned in the course of employment where the rights shift to the employer of the entity that commissioned the work in the first place (Perelman, 2004). Unregistered design rights are set to protect the shape of a profit-making product or one that has marketable potential. This protection deters unauthorised replication of an original design. Copyright, on the other hand, refers to the protection given to the creator or inventor of an original work. Copyright prevents reproduction of the protected material without formal authority from the copyright holder. Under copyright laws, credit must be given to the creator of a work if the work is used by persons other than the creator or his assignee (Spinello, 2007). Copyright gives the creator a right to decide who may alter the work into forms other than the work’s original form. For instance, copyright allows the author of a book to settle on who can adapt the book into a film or music piece. Just like a patent, copyright is an intellectual property, which is a distinctive creation of the mind that gives the creator or inventor exclusive rights and is acknowledged under both national and international law. In UK, copyright emanates from the Statute of Anne, which was the first act on copyright enacted by the Parliament of Great Britain. Copyright is applicable to any idea or information that is deemed as expressible, discrete and substantive in nature. The concept of copyright emerged as a form of government control, which prohibited printing. Traditionally, copyright is aimed at promoting innovations by giving creators or inventors profit and control over inventions. Copyrights, the same as patents are guarded by international agreements, as well as national laws. International copyright laws allow for the protection of creative works as soon as they are appended on a medium. Some of the most common international laws on copyright agreements are the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Buenos Aires Convention (WICO, 2003). While these international agreements offer a standardised avenue for copyright protection, individual countries also have their own copyright laws. In UK, copyright is guarded by the copyright, design and patent act of 1988, which acknowledges copyright as a form of property or intellectual right. Contrary to patent laws, copyright laws protect originally created aesthetic works such as literary and artistic works. The law also covers films, sound recordings and published books in their typographical arrangement. Section 153 of the copyright laws asserts that in case the aforementioned features are absent, then copyright does not exist. The law provides reasonable expectations from creators by acknowledging copyright limitations. However, copyright philosophical differences have emanated from the assertion that copyrights are indeed “right” or not. Here, a section of persons believe that copyright should embody freedom of speech, education and equity in accessing critical objects and ideas. Design copyright without full patent As earlier cited, it is paramount that a work meets all requirements of originality in order to be considered as copyrightable. In addition, a copyright expires after the expiry of its set period although an extension can be provided. In the UK, trademarks embody short phrases coined by persons as copyright seems too large a word to use on such phrases. In addition, in terms of designs, a person or organization may receive design copyright but is denied patent rights. Usually, this is matter is resolved by the judicial system of the nation. While design copyright may be granted for creativity and originality in design, a full patent may not be granted if the said design can be formulated by a skilled person in the same field as the inventor. If for instance, the inventor of a certain glass bottle design were to claim patent on the design, it would mean that the entity controlled the food processing and manufacturing sector in significant proportions. In such an instance, therefore, design copyrights are awarded to the entity, but full patent rights are denied. In addition, copyright may be awarded to authors who coincidentally publish similar original works (Miller & Davis, 2000). If it can be proven that both authors published the work independently without either of them duplicating the work of the other, then the two individuals will receive design copyright for their individual works, but not full patent rights. Ideally, within the printed media arena, full patents are relatively unheard off, and copyrights are most common. In addition, design copyright can be obtained through publication of the original creation in a viable media, however, full patent can only be realised through a process that involves a search formal application and award of patent (George, 1998). If all the requirements for obtaining patent rights are not fulfilled, but the creator or inventor publicises the original creation, design copyrights are immediately awarded, but full patent rights are denied. Moreover, when the functionality of a new, original product is similar to that of an entirely different product, the inventor of the new product can only receive copyright on the new development rather than full patent. Here, the design will be registered under its creator and offered protection on the functionality of the product rather than its non-functional appearance or ability. Under chapter IV, section 85 of the copyright, designs and patent act of 1977, copyright can be conferred on producers and photographers. The right to privacy given to these works is based on the appearance of the work in terms of its originality, rather than its use of a certain idea in the course of production. For instance, although the Monalisa painting is one of a kind in the world, copyright privileges were awarded to the painter rather than full patent rights because while the painting is entirely original and unique, another skilled person could easily have made it. The innovative nature of such an object is questionable; therefore, full patent cannot be conferred on its creator. Modular Design Principles and the Prefabricated Building Solutions The modular design principle refers to a series of layers of building blocks referred to as modules. This principle of building is based on the concept or redundant building blocks. Modular buildings are essentially made of sections or modules that can be linked together on the construction site through Gigabit Ethernet trunks that are laid to connect to separate modules. Through such connection, modules are capable of forming massive constructed areas that meet a client’s temporary or permanent needs for space. The manufacturing process involved in production of modules is conducted in controlled environments within a factory, which limits the likelihood of delays in delivery of construction materials associated with old construction methods, which occur as a result of adverse weather conditions, material and labour shortages, as well as delivery problems. Therefore, the modular design principal offers a reliable and cost effective way of building. In addition, modular designs offers owners and construction workers the benefit of flexibility in terms of being able to move, relocate and remove a modular building, altogether after it has fulfilled its need and is no longer necessary. There are a number of modular design options to choose from. For instance, single module units offer builders and owners a wide array of quality, moveable housing units for emergency housing requirements or in cases where singular individual units are required rather than large open spaces (Koones & Redford, 2010). This can be effective when setting up temporary housing structures for construction workers who prefer not to commute to and from the site. Standard office facilities can also be established by utilizing this building technology. Certain manufacturers of single module buildings offer cost-effective solutions to their customers by setting up the building and delivering it to the customer ready for use. This group of modular building is easy to install and remove. With utmost care and precision when dismantling, the modules can be reused several times. Modular buildings offer yet another viable way of using modular design principles in construction. Here, several modules are connected, either side by side or end to end or through a combination of both methods, on-site. Under modular building technology, many floor plans can be achieved while using minimal materials and resources. This method is effective if the space of land available is minimal, but a customer requires many rooms or floors. Multi-storey modular units can be stacked up to five storeys, offering quality, space utilization of land. Because the modules are ready for use, assembly or disassembly takes a relatively short time, therefore, achieving quality units that can be dismantled if the customer moves. Modules used in both single-storey and multi-storey construction are made from materials typically used in normal construction. These include timber, steel and aluminium. However, regardless of the material used, the frames are commonly mounted on steel chassis to offer maximum quality and durability. Fitting of air conditioning, heating, plumbing and electrical facilities is made possible by provisions within the frames at the time of manufacture. One of a UK-based manufacturer of modular building solutions is Premier Interlink, which also offers customers services such as ground works, electric connection and fittings such as furniture and air conditioning systems. Popularity of modular construction techniques has resulted in the application of modular designs in schools, offices, clinics, tourist accommodation units, day-care centres, laboratories and other institutions. Prefabricated building solutions, on the other hand, refer to construction materials that are manufactured and transported to the area of construction. Following the advances in technology witnessed recently all over the world, transmission of valuable information has been made easier, and access to new technologies is afforded to persons who did not have it. Through such endeavours, budget-sensitive builders and owners are shifting to less strenuous and costly systems of construction. Some construction method technologies are known to lower construction costs by up to 30 percent. Prefabricated building solutions encompass a wide array of building materials, which are already manufactured and wait fixing. Prefabricated building solutions encompass different types of panels that include steel structural insulated panels, wooden panels, cement fibre panels, which are made from a substance that looks like a cloth and coated using cement plaster, reinforced concrete panels, which are made from blocks of concrete laid in a certain format depending on customer requirements. While the cost implication of using prefabricated building solutions is lower than that of traditional building systems, prefabricated solutions are relatively more expensive than modular designs. This is primarily because, under prefabricated systems, the building is fully constructed by the manufacturer and delivered to the customer ready to use. Depending on the type of material used to manufacture the structures, the cost of using different prefabricated building solutions differs significantly. In terms of security, both modular and prefabricated building solutions result in safe, secure and homely buildings. However, prefabricated materials used in the manufacturing process offer different degrees of perceived security, especially from adverse weather conditions such as hurricanes and tornados. Modular building solutions, on the other hand, have lower perceived security degrees in terms of ability to withstand pressure from external sources such as weather conditions. While multi-storey modular solutions make highest use of land space as compared to prefabricated solutions, the multi-storey buildings are relatively weak when dealing with extreme weather conditions such as the two aforementioned patterns. Depending on the thickness of material used in both solutions, manufacturers offer several years’ guarantee of quality performance. However, solutions that use say steel panels are likely to be worn out by rusting in salty sea areas, while timber-based solutions are negatively affected by termites, so it is illogical to use such solutions in termite-infested areas (Koones and Redford, 2010). Un-patentable designs or unworthy of achieving a full patent. In a case where an inventor or creator in the manufacturing sector comes up with a design for the conduct of functions performed by prefabricated or modular solutions, the new design may not be patentable if it uses basic principles patent or otherwise, found in the existing building solutions. For instance, if an inventor comes up with a new method of aligning modules, then the invention cannot receive patent acknowledgement as it utilizes technology encompassed in another similar-performing system. In addition, the design may not be patentable if it lacks innovativeness (Stim, 2010). If the new design can be formulated by players in the manufacture of building solutions, then the design is deemed as lacking innovativeness; therefore, its inventor is not eligible to receive patent rights over his creation. Because of advances in technology, various modifications are made on products to strengthen them and increase their saleability. Where a new technology is used to modify and increase the value of the already existing building solution, the user of the technology cannot patent the modified product regardless of whether or not the old one was registered as a patent. On the other hand, it may not be worthwhile to achieve full patent of the product if the product is incapable of achieving high sales or if the product is easily damaged (Rand, 2001). Registering a patent for a product that is short lived in terms of durability and overall long term quality may be fruitless. In such a case, it is better to develop the product, manufacture and sell it as an unregistered design. If the product is not durable for at least the minimum patent term, it is unreasonable to acquire its full patent rights (Stallman, 2005). Conclusion Patent, design and copyright laws govern the utility of products, ideas and designs by persons other than the said items’ inventors. Contravening these rights constitutes both civil and criminal offenses under UK laws and is punishable by imprisonment of payment of hefty fines. As noted in the report, it is crucial to follow due process in applying for a patent as lack of it could result in someone else claiming full patent rights. Intellectual property is recognised globally by national governments, as well as international organisations and forums. While different nations have individual laws on patents, design and copyrights, international laws of copyright also govern the application of ideas and products by persons other than the inventor. Most of the copyright and patent laws acknowledge a single or a group of entities are inventors and require them to give sufficient information regarding the formula used in making the product. In construction, there are many viable building solutions that offer effective, time efficient and cost-effective building solutions. Modular designs and prefabricated solutions are all modern systems used in construction, and while uses different parameters in manufacture, the result is usually spectacular in terms of appearance and effectiveness. References Bettig, R. V. (2003). Copyrighting The Political Economy of Intellectual Property. UK: Westview Press. Dratler, J. (1991). Intellectual property law: commercial, creative, and industrial property. 1(615) Law Journal Press. Durham, A. L. (1999). Patent Law Essentials: A Concise Guide. US: Quorum Books. George, R. T. (1998). Intellectual Property Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greenhalgh, C and Rogers M. (2010). The Role and Nature of Intellectual Property.  New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Koones, S. and Redford, R. (2010). Prefabulous & Sustainable: Building and Customizing an Affordable, Energy-Efficient Home. UK: Abrams. Mossoff, A. (2001). 'Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History', Hastings Law Journal, 52, p. 1255. Miller, A.R. and Davis, M. H. (2000). Intellectual Property: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright (3rd ed). New York: WestWadsworth. Perelman, M. (2004). Intellectual Property and The Corporate Confiscation of Creativity. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Rand, A. (2001). Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. UK: Macgraw. Sherman, B and Bently, L. (1999). Modern intellectual property law: the British experience. UK: Cambridge University Press. Spinello, R. A. (2007). "Intellectual property rights", Library Higher Technology. 25 (1): 12–22. Stallman, R. (2005). Patent absurdity. The Guardian: London. Retrieved May 23, 2010. Stim, R. (2010). Copyright & trademark. US: Nolo Press. World international copyright organization (WICO). (2003). Copyright and Related Rights. Retrieved from: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/ Read More