<![CDATA[Tsalissya Nabila, M. Zairul Alam Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya Jl. MT. Haryono No. 169 Malang e-mail: tsalissyanabila@student.ub.ac.id ABSTRAK Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi perihal kekaburan hukum dalam pemeriksaan unsur non-obviousness berdasarkan Pasal 7 Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2016 tentang Paten sehingga perlindungan terhadap suatu invensi paten menjadi terhambat. Atas dasar inilah, diperlukan adanya pertimbangan yang pasti dalam menentukan non-obviousness dalam Paten. Berdasarkan pemaparan sebelumnya, penulis mengangkat rumusan masalah: (1) Bagaimana analisis pertimbangan hakim dalam menentukan unsur non-obviousness langkah inventif sebagai syarat patentabilitas di Indonesia? (2) Bagaimana analisis perbandingan putusan pengadilan dalam menentukan unsur non-obviousness sebagai syarat patentabilitas di Indonesia dan Cina? Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan kasus dan pendekatan komparatif. Bahan-bahan hukum dianalisis dengan teknik penafsiran sistematis dan penafsiran gramatikal. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, diperoleh jawaban bahwa penentuan unsur non-obviousness langkah inventif sebagai syarat patentabilitas di Indonesia masih diatur secara umum dan tidak memiliki pedoman khusus, yang mana berimplikasi pada disparitas dan subjektivitas dalam putusan pengadilan terkait paten. Disisi lain, ketentuan paten di Cina melalui Patent Law of the People's Republic of China 2008 menentukan unsur non-obviousness langkah inventif dengan berfokus pada apakah ada efek tak terduga yang didapat oleh invensi secara keseluruhan atau klaim per klaim. Proses pemeriksaan paten di Cina mengutamakan pembuktian terhadap bukti intrinsik sebagai unsur utama dalam menentukan adanya langkah inventif. Sedangkan pengadilan di Indonesia mengutamakan bukti ekstrinsik, seperti dokumen maupun keterangan saksi ahli sebagai unsur utama dalam pembuktian langkah inventif. Dengan demikian, perlu dipertimbangkan untuk menciptakan peraturan pelaksanaan ataupun pedoman khusus untuk menerapkan Pasal 7 Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2016 berkaitan dengan syarat patentabilitas langkah inventif. Kata Kunci: non-obviousness, langkah inventif, perbandingan, syarat patentabilitas, pemeriksaan substantif ABSTRACT This research departs from the vagueness of norm in figuring out the aspect of non-obviousness according to Article 7 of Law Number 13 of 2016 concerning Patents, hampering the protection of an invention of a patent. This issue underlies the consideration of judges to decide non-obviousness regarding patents. Departing from this issue, this research aims to investigate: (1) the analysis of the consideration of judges in determining the aspect of non-obviousness as an inventive step in the requirement of patentability in Indonesia and (2) the comparative analysis of court decisions to determine non-obviousness as a requirement of patentability in Indonesia and China? This research employed normative-juridical methods, and case and comparative approaches. The legal materials were analyzed using systematic and grammatical analyses. The research results reveal that determining non-obviousness as an inventive step as the requirement of patentability in Indonesia is generally but not specifically governed. This situation has led to disparity and subjectivity in the court decisions regarding patents. On the other hand, the provision of patents in China, under the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China 2008, regulates the aspect of non-obviousness of inventive step by focusing on whether it is related to the unexpected effect obtained by the entire invention or it refers to claim-by-claim principle. The process of investigation into patents in China heavily relies on intrinsic evidence as the main element in figuring out whether there is an inventive step, while Indonesia adheres more to the extrinsic evidence relying on documents or the testimonies given by expert witnesses as the main element in proving inventive step. Thus, making a new regulation regarding the implementation or specific guidelines in the implementation of Article 7 of Law Number 13 of 2016 concerning the requirements of patentability of an inventive step needs to be considered. Keywords: non-obviousness, inventive step, comparison, patentability requirement, substantive investigation]]>
Copyrights © 2023
