Patents AIA Move to First-to-File Passed on Sept. 16, 2011 First - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Patents – AIA – Move to First-to-File • Passed on Sept. 16, 2011 • First to File goes into effect for new applications filed on or after March 16, 2013

Patents – NEW § 102(a) – Novelty • “(a) Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or” • What’s Old • What’s New

Patents – NEW § 102(a) – Novelty • “(a) Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued [to another] . . . or in [another’s] application for patent published . . . [that] was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” • Someone else filed first – this is First-to-File

Patents – AIA – How is it different? • A invents an invention on Day 1. B invents the same on Day 2 and files for a patent that same day. A, never telling anyone about the invention, files for a patent on Day 10. What result? • Old law? • A get’s patent (generally), because ok under § 102(a) (not before invention) and § 102(b) (not more than one year prior) • New Law? • B get’s patent, because “effectively filed before the filing date” of A – § 102(a)(2).

Patents – AIA – How is it different? • G publicly uses an embodiment of an invention in Hungary. It is never seen or learned about by anyone in the United States. G never files a patent application anywhere. H, who had conceived the invention earlier than G did, files a U.S. application two months after the Hungarian disclosure. What result? • Old law? • Ok under § 102(a) (not before invention; not in US) • Ok under § 102(b) (not more than one year prior; not in US)

Patents – AIA – How is it different? • G publicly uses an embodiment of an invention in Hungary. It is never seen or learned about by anyone in the United States. G never files a patent application anywhere. H, who had conceived the invention earlier than G did, files a U.S. application two months after the Hungarian disclosure. What result? • New law? • § 102(a)(1) problem • no longer geographic restriction • keyed from filing date, not date of invention

Patents – NEW § 102(a) – Novelty “before . . . filing date” Invention Date Filing Date

Patents – NEW § 102(b) – Exceptions • “(1) A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art . . . under . . . (a)(1) if— (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor . . . ; or (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, . . . been publicly disclosed by the inventor” • (1)(A) is a 1 year grace for inventor’s own disclosures (kinda like to old § 102(b)) • (1)(B) rewards the earlier disclosure

Patents – NEW § 102(b) – Exceptions • “(2) A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under . . . (a)(2) if— (A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor . . . ; (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor . . . or (C) . . . .” • Again, (2)(B) protects first to disclose

Patents – NEW § 102(b) – Novelty “1 year or less” Filing Date OK Invalidating publication publication from from inventor inventor

Patents – NEW § 102(a), (b) Prior ¡ ¡ 102 ¡(a) ¡(1) ¡ 102 ¡(a) ¡(2) ¡ art ¡ ¡in ¡ ¡ ¡ Printed ¡publica5ons, ¡ 1 st ¡filed ¡U.S. ¡patent ¡ 102(a) ¡ public ¡uses, ¡etc. ¡ applica5on ¡by ¡another ¡ before ¡filing ¡date ¡ ¡ ¡ Excep&ons ¡ 102 ¡(b) ¡(1) ¡ 102 ¡(b) ¡(2) ¡ in ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ (A) ¡Any ¡ “ disclosure ” ¡ (A) ¡1 st ¡ ¡filer ¡derived ¡ 102(b) ¡ coming ¡from ¡the ¡ inven5on ¡from ¡2 nd ¡ (limited ¡ ¡ applicant ¡ ¡ filer. ¡ to ¡1 ¡year ¡ (B) ¡Disclosures ¡by ¡ only!) ¡ others ¡made ¡aEer ¡a ¡ (B) ¡1 st ¡filer ¡filed ¡aEer ¡ “ public ” ¡disclosure ¡by ¡ “ public ” ¡disclosure ¡by ¡ the ¡applicant. ¡ applicant/2 nd ¡filer. ¡

Patents – AIA – Public Disclosure • A invents an invention on Day 1. B invents the same on Day 2, never discloses. A publicly discloses invention on Day 3. B files a patent on Day 4 and A files a patent on Day 5. Who prevails? • Under § 102(a)(2) – B has earlier effective filing date • BUT – § 102(b)(2)(B) – A publically disclosed before B filed • Under § 102(a)(1) – Disclosed before A filed • BUT – § 102(b)(1)(A) – disclosure by A (inventor) • And made less than 1 year before filing

Patents – AIA – Public Disclosure • A invents an invention on Day 1. A then publically discloses on Day 2. B invents and publically discloses on Day 3. A files a patent on Day 4. Who prevails? • Under § 102(a)(1) – Disclosed before A filed • BUT – § 102(b)(1)(A) – disclosure by A (inventor) • And made less than 1 year before filing • What if A’s disclosure “secret”? • No patent under § 102(a)(1) • What if A waited to file 366 days after B’s disclosure? • Beyond 1 year grace period -- § 102(b)(1)(B)

Patents – AIA – (A) Grace Periods • A files an application on June 1 of Year 1. • In May of Year 1, A had published her own article disclosing the invention • removed from prior art under (b)(1)(A). • In April of Year 1, D stole A’s notes and placed the invention on sale • removed from prior art under (b)(1)(A). • Also in April of Year 1, D had filed a U.S. patent application using A’s notes • removed from prior art under (b)(2)(A). • In each case, the art gets removed by subparagraph (A) in either (b)(1) or (2) because the disclosure came from / was derived from A’s own work.

Patents – AIA – (B) Grace Periods • B publicly discloses his invention in an article on January 1 of Year 1 and eventually files an application on December 31 of that year. • On February 1 of Year 1, I publishes her own article based on her own research on the same subject • removed from prior art under (b)(1)(B). • On March 1 of Year 1 I files a patent application based on her own research • application is removed from the prior art under (b)(2)(B). Note: First filer (I) loses patent to second filer (B). • In both cases, I’s independent work gets excluded from the prior art because B made an earlier “public” disclosure.

Patents – AIA – Final Thoughts • Scope of possible prior art broader (no geographic limitation) • Filing early (or at least disclosing and then filing early) is encouraged • Case law on what is a public use or printed publication likely still applicable • But what about experimental use?