Athletic training systems in russia versus us: patenting laws and experiences

Associate Professor, PhD E.V.Titova1
Dr.Hab., Associate Professor E.A. Cherepov1
Associate Professor, PhD N.S. Koneva1
Dr.Biol., Associate Professor V.V. Erlikh1
Associate Professor, PhD O.V. Dubrovin1
1South Ural State University (National Research University), Chelyabinsk

Objective of the study was to find the best legal ways to defend the copyrights for the newly designed/ updated athletic training systems/ models. We analyzed for the purposes of the study the existing legal frameworks for the athletic training system patenting in Russia versus the US and some other nations, with an emphasis on the patenting procedures and their deficiencies and challenges.
Having analyzed the reports and practical experience of RosPatent agency, we found that the valid national legislation offers only two ways to patent an athletic training model: either as a technical solution or an effect of one material object on the other. Neither of these frame procedures appears perfect enough, nor guarantees due legal protection for a training system viewed as the sport-specific competitive skill mastering know-how; or movement technique excelling method; or the physical qualities/ physical fitness advancement procedure. Based on the study data, we came to conclusion that the existing national legal provisions for athletic training system patenting need to be updated, clarified and substantiated by the relevant theoretical and legal grounds including the terms, definitions and comprehensive lists of the copyright objects. The study data and analysis showed a high promise of the relevant scientific research initiatives to address both the athletic training systems and legal framework and provide a sound practical basis to facilitate the patenting activity in the national physical education and sports sector.

Keywords: sports training methods, patent law, intellectual property in sports, sports law.


  1. Lubysheva L.I., Zagrevskaya A.I., Peredelskiy A.A. et al. Sportizatsiya v sisteme fizicheskogo vospitaniya: ot nauchnoy idei k innovatsionnoy praktike [Sportization in physical education system: from scientific idea to innovative practice]. Moscow: Teoriya i praktika fizicheskoy kultury i sporta, 2017, 200 p.
  2. Derek Bambauer. Legal Responses to the Challenges of Sports Patents. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Volume 18, Number 2 Spring 2005.
  3. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 318 (1980).
  4. J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc.v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int”l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 145 (2001).
  5. U.S. Patent No. 5, 616, 089 (issued Apr. 1, 1997).
  6. U.S. Patent No. 6,190,291 (issued Feb. 20 2001).
  7. U.S. Patent No. 5,639,243 (issued June 17, 1997).
  8. U.S. Patent o. 6,176,790 (issued Jan. 23, 2001).
  9. U.S. Patent No. 5,080,111 (issued Jan. 14, 1992).
  10. U.S. Patent No. 5,616,089 (issued April 1, 1997).
  11. Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, 7 U.S.C. § 2402 (2000).
  12. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v Signature Fin. Group, 149 F. 3d 1368, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
  13. Titova E., Ostanina E. (2018). Sports training as the object of intellectual property rights. HUMAN. SPORT. MEDICINE., 18(3), 69-76. Doi:10.14529/hsm180307