Patents and (possible) Plagiarism, Anyone ever been in a similar situation?

There are two different concepts: "First to invent" or "First to file". Europe uses the simpler "first to file". The US uses "First to invent" and gives the inventor a one-year grace period to prove that he/she invented it first. This method is obviously more profitable for the lawyers... If you file a US patent application after reading the idea, you would face the difficult task of proving that you had invented this before the article was published. Fertile field for endless lawsuits... Peter Alfke

Reply to
Peter Alfke
Loading thread data ...

Hi Peter, Now I understand 102(b) better than before: gives the inventor a one-year grace period to prove that he/she invented it first.

With DDP (Document Disclosure Program) program introduced into law, it gives the DDP holder 2 years grace period to prove. Does it contract with the one-year grace period claimed in 102(b)?

What is the DDP benefit or disadvantage? Thank you.

Weng

Reply to
wtxwtx

IOW the 1 year that you have after your invention is described publicly is one year after _you_ publish -- not after _I_ publish.

--
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

Do you know the story about J/Phy particle in physics?

One scientist published the discovery first, another claimed that they had discover it earlier. Finally a compromise was reached that the particle got a dual name: J/Phy particle.

The 102(b) is applied just to the same scenario.

Thank you, Peter, you let me understand the complex sentences of

102(b).

Weng

Reply to
wtxwtx

Let me get away from I and You:

The inventor filing for a US patent can publish and talk about his idea for a full year before filing the patent application, and anybody else (who learned from this and tries to file before the legitimate inventor) has to prove that he invented it first. In Europe, you better be completely quiet about your idea until you file. Remember, I learned this only by osmosis. I am not a patent lawyer, heaven forbid... Peter Alfke

Reply to
Peter Alfke

U.S. patent law is complex. Simply referring to the U.S. system as "first to invent" rather than "first to file" probably adds more confusion than elucidation to the discussion.

Assuming that a U.S. patent application satisfies all the other requirements for a patent, section 102 of the patent code states that a "person shall be entitled to a patent unless ...." Section 102 has six subsections, each giving a different reason that a person should NOT get a patent. Subsections (a), (b), (f) and (g) are most relevant to this discussion.

102(a) blocks the applicant from getting a patent if the invention was publicly known* before the applicant invented it. So if I invented something on July 7, 2003, any publication, public use, etc. before July 7, 2003 should stop me from getting a patent. Note that since I didn't develop the invention before July 7, 2003, there is no way I could have publicly disclosed the invention before July 7, 2003. So there is nothing the inventor can do that will block there patent based on 102(a).

102(b) focuses on the date of the patent application** rather than the date of invention. If my invention was publicly known* more than one year before I applied for the patent, then I should not get a patent. So if I applied for a patent on September 1, 2005, but anyone - including me - publicly disclosed the invention before September 1,

2004, that should block my patent application.

102(f) is easy: "he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

102(g) relates to the situation where two different people apply for a patent on the same subject matter; in certain situations an "interference" proceeding may be held. In the interference the person that first applied** for the patent is generally assumed to be the first inventor and entitled to the patent. But if the second person that applied for a patent can prove that he invented first and meets certain other requirements, the second applicant may get the patent rather than the first applicant.
  • publicly known - is defined somewhat differently for (a) and (b). ** application date is the earlier of the actual application date or the date of the U.S. priority application. A provisional application may provide a priority date; but a document disclosure does not.

I hope this clarified more than it confused

Richard Tanzer Patent Agent

Reply to
mr_reznat

Hi Richard, Thank you for your excellent advice.

After reading this post, I finally understand what you have said in your previous several postings.

Weng

Reply to
wtxwtx

It is curious that for years it was assumed that a small inventor would be totally overwhelmed in court by a large corporation. Then, around the mid-70's, the courts became alarmed by patent infringement by FOREIGN companies. I guess it was ok when it was a US corporation that was screwing the small guy. Patents then became an essential defense against a foreign technology onslaught. The small guys started getting more leverage in court, meaning they could actually win cases. I remember a very large patent case about the original inventor of the laser. His original lab notebooks were classified, and other companies started building lasers after the technology was declassified. This guy, however, was denied a patent because by the time his lab notebooks were declassified the tecnology was considered to be in the public domain. Well, he sued the USPTO and won. After getting his patent, he went on to sue EVERY laser manufacturer that refused to license his patent, winning every suit AFAIK.

Now, the tables seem to have turned. Nowadays, you hear mostly sympathy for the large corporations:

formatting link

Does anyone have a hanky? Hey, if you don't like the law then change it.

Tom Seim

Reply to
soar2morrow

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.