Once you get a provisional patent on file you are fairly safe. There is always a possibility that someone will start doing things that would infringe you, and you really have no ability to stop that until you have an issued patent, but you have put the wheels in motion and others who come after you could not steal your invention out from under you as long as you see it through to getting a patent.

You might want to talk to your attorney about seeking early publication when you file the nonprovisional patent application. I am working on an article that will explain some strategies, but that together with claims that are likely allowable can create rights against others as of the time the nonprovisional patent application publishes.

Best of luck to you.

-Gene

I have just completed part of the patent process. I did hire a very nice attorney and we filed my patent under a provisional patent this week to save a little money up front. This is helping us release our products for sale in about three weeks. We are going to file our non provisional patent in about two months. We estimate we will be able to afford the more expensive non provisional in that time, but we have twelve months to complete the filing is it takes longer. Our product is one of those “save everyone help the earth” products but in a practical way. Our current occupation is manufacturing so we have done our research.

My biggest fear is that someone can “rip off” my invention. Is that possible now that I am filed? I do understand that if someone could prove that they had my idea before me then I could have problems but we have done a very intensive search and i actually came up with the idea over 6 years ago I just couldnt put it all together at that time. Can you help to settle any of my fears or what additional precautions should I take?

Please let me add that my attorney is very able and comes in high regard. He has told me that I am safe to a very high degree but a second opinion would be nice.

Thank you,
Adam.

You make an excellent point, and I think I probably need to blog on this a bit in the coming days.

I am a fan of moving forward in an appropriate and traditional business manner. People who are serious will act like they are serious. You should never lay your cards out on the table completely unless and until there is some reason to believe it would be beneficial. There are companies and individuals both in the patent world and entertainment world that will let you spill everything and then take what you give them. Ideas are not something that can be protected, and inventions are only protected if a patent exists. On top of that, one of the things some may do in the invention context is look at what you have and then try and engineer around. Legally there is nothing wrong with that, so your job as an inventor needs to be to proceed with caution in an appropriate business manner knowing that the law will allow others to take what they don’t have to respect.

What I like to do is start communications only after a patent application has been filed. Then preliminary communications would vaguely describe the invention, indicate that a patent has been filed and test interest. All situations when negotiations and deal-making are involved are different, and you have to be flexible and evaluate the risk vs. the reward at any given point. Having said that, if there is interest you are not likely to be able to get a confidentiality agreement signed yet. So what you might do is send an executive summary, a copy of the filing receipt proving an application has been applied for and maybe one or more drawings. You want to gauge interest before showing everything. Hopefully along the way a confidentiality agreement can be obtained and the complete application shown, including claims. If not, perhaps you show everything but the claims, or maybe only the claims. It is also important to realize that you may not want to give the filing receipt because then the other party could potentially file a protest. So what you might want to do is wait until the application is published before you do anything because after that no protest can be filed. You can petition for early publication, which is easy to do.

There is a lot that goes into this, and you are right to be paranoid. Do remember that in order to make a deal you will need to show the cards at some point. This is why inventors really should engage a patent attorney. It is an expense no doubt, but strategy doesn’t and should end when you file the patent application.

-Gene

>>> “Therefore, reputable people and companies absolutely require that you have a patent application filed so they can evaluate what you have sworn is your invention, and so they can appreciate the full scope of what you have invented. This allows them to rationally determine whether your invention has merit, and whether they need to deal with you.”

What about companies that lead an inventor on, listen to his/her ideas, figure out how it works, then figure out a way to workaround (or even to infringe and take the chance with litigation later on). How common is this?
For this reason I question whether an inventor shouldn’t delay in providing all the patent details (patent #number, claims, …) – and instead just speak in terms of WHAT the invention provides. Without the HOW details, it would be more difficult for such a company to cheat inventors this way. I realize that at some point the full details will need to be handed over – but hopefully an inventor can delay this enough to assess the honesty of the potential licensee AND get a better understanding in the level of interest.

Am I being too paranoid? Or doesn’t this seem to happen more often in the software world? …I have read about several large software/Internet companies that *seem* to deal this way. If anything, I suspect this happens more in software technology because a small software inventor has a legitimate reason for asking a $1million+ on a new technology and the potential licensee figures they’ll take their chances in court.

WOW! That article is embarrassingly incorrect. The entire premise of the article is wrong! I think I know what I am going to blog on today! Thanks.

-Gene

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2346670,00.asp

There are so many things wrong with this article it is sad. Maybe Gene you should contact PC mag and offer to be their IP consultant, obviously they need some help Even worse, this article was on the front page of Google news.

That same thing happens here in the US as well. Independent inventors frequently fail to realize that 102(b) says that you must file in the US within 12 months of publication, use or sale. It sounds like Canada has the same rules. I am seeing a pattern develop here. NAFTA countries seem to have similar rules.

-Gene

I hope all is well with you.

-Gene