Sui Generis only works in certain stages of development

There is also continuous debate on the rationale of sui generis intellectual property regimes, especially given that they potentially undermine the strict demarcations of traditional intellectual property rights. Analyzing utility model regimes and their role in enhancing economic development and innovation, Suthersanen offers three rationales for utility model sui generis laws: (1) ameliorating the defects of the national patent system; (2) preventing free riding in copying and encouraging innovation, especially in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises; and (3) improving the legal environment in developing countries. The above justifications turned out to work for the Chinese, German, and South Korean economies. However, by way of Australian example, Suthersanen shows that, for countries where the national economy and industries have reached higher levels of technological capacity, utility model regimes might not be as useful, since the low innovative step increases low value patents, thus creating uncertainty and making the benefits of the innovation patent system illusory, especially as compared to its costs. The conclusion that Suthersanen makes is that utility model sui generis rights can be useful and may enhance innovation, but only in certain developing countries and at specific stages of their development.