Posts Tagged: "first to file"

The questions asked of the USPTO, and specifically Director Kappos, related to the USPTO interpretation of the grace period in 102(b)(1)(B). At one point, in response to a question, Direct Kappos responded: “We are reading the words just the way that Gene Quinn suggested in his comment.” I do not claim that everything below is in 100% alignment with the USPTO interpretation, but I write now to expand upon my remarks. We have a first to file system with an American flavor, not a first to publish system as so many seem to think.

Even when we switch to first to file inventors will still in some cases need to be able to detail when they conceived of various aspects of their invention if they are going to attempt to rely upon the grace period. Affidavit practice to establish what was invented, when it was invented and that someone else derived their invention or disclosure from you will still be a part of patent practice even after March 16, 2013. Therefore, it is critical now to have an invention record and will similarly be extremely important even after the switch to first to file takes place.

For well over a year I have been explaining that under the US first to file system the inventor will still have a personal grace-period, but that the grace-period is personal and relates only to the inventor’s own disclosures, or the disclosures of others who have derived from the inventor. Disclosures of third-parties who independently arrived at the invention will be used against the inventor. Now that the USPTO has come out with examination guidelines we find out the truth. I was right all along.

How this will philosophically change things remains unclear because the America Invents Act requires that the petition filed to institute a derivation proceeding demonstrate that the claimed invention in the subject application or patent was derived from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application without authorization. The Patent Office has also recognized the similarity between derivation proceedings and interference practice, saying: “Petitions to institute derivation proceedings, while distinct from interference practice, raise similar issues to those that may be raised in interferences in a motion for judgment on priority of invention. Currently, motions for judgment on priority of invention, including issues such as conception, corroboration…” See 77 Fed. Reg. 7035 (10 February 2012).

Many people situated variously within and outside of the patent system of the United States urged the adoption of first-to-file. There are, however, many questions about the scope and possible impact of the AIA. Exactly how it will all play out remains to be seen. A significant question is what will be the likely impact of the AIA upon the operations of the USPTO, an organization that has been so greatly over-burdened in recent times. Anyone interested in reading this is likely old enough to have heard the old saying “Be careful what you wish for – you may get it.” Now we have it.

22% of social network patent applications are filed within one year of the youngest prior art cited against them. So speed of filing counts. If these applications had been filed a year earlier, then 22% of them would have avoided the youngest prior art cited against their independent claims. The applicants would have had correspondingly broader claims allowed. They would not have had to argue or amend around this prior art or abandon their applications altogether.

There will be plenty of time to drill down on the particulars of the America Invents Act. The Act is dense, language choices from section to section in some places change and in other places remains the same, making you suspect that different terms must mean different things but the same term in different places has to mean the same thing, right? That being said, I thought I might take this opportunity to provide a high level overview of the America Invents Act.  What follows is discussion of 5 provisions contained in the Act.  Look for an overview breakdown of additional provisions (prior user rights, supplemental examination, post-grant review, etc.) coming soon.

It is fair to say that enactment of the AIA is not what most stakeholders championed early on. Many small inventors and innovation companies feel that some of the provisions are not in their best interest. IT would have preferred a bill that did more to change how patents are valued and enforced. Nevertheless, to most stakeholder, the final version of the bill is an improvement over previous versions of patent legislation. When patent reform legislation was first introduced in 2005, its primary objective was to reduce the infringement liability of large technology aggregators by significantly limiting equitable and monetary remedies, restrict venue, and make issued patents far easier to invalidate through post-grant review. In addition, earlier versions of the bill would have given the USPTO unprecedented substantive rulemaking authority and increased the cost and burden of filing a patent application. In combination, these measures would have significantly undermined the enforceability and value of patent rights, while increasing the cost, complexity, and uncertainty of obtaining patents. All of these reforms were advanced by a IT interests set on weakening the ability of small innovators to obtain and enforce patents.

On Friday, September 16, 2011, President Obama signed into law “The America Invents Act” (“AIA”) which passed the Senate on September 8, 2011, by a vote of 89-9. The AIA passed the House of Representatives on June 23rd by a vote of 304-117. The measure, which is the product of a seven-years-long legislative battle among patent policy stakeholders, changes how patents are obtained and enforced in the United States. Important reforms to patent law are incorporated into the AIA and, just as significantly, several controversial proposed changes were deleted from the AIA before final passage. This article is a play-by-play of the process and how it unfolded.

The America Invents Act, which just recently passed by the Congress and sent to the White House for President Obama’s signature, is the most significant patent reform legislation in decades, and it promises to change virtually all of patent practice as we know it over the next 18 months. Some pieces of the legislation will go into effect almost immediately,…

Under the “first to file” AIA regime, the effective prior art date is what prior art exists before the U.S. patent filing date. In other words, the U.S. patent applicant no longer has the luxury of that potential up to one year “window” after the invention date. Instead, the danger of intervening prior art by others steadily (and potentially exponentially) increases as time passes between the invention date and the U.S. patent filing date. Put differently, U.S. patent applicants are now really in a “race to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)” to minimize the ever increasing danger of intervening (and accumulating) prior art coming into play. For the Goliaths, they’ve been existing in this situation for many years because the rest of the world (ROW) is “first to file.” But for the American Davids, “first to file” under the AIA is going to be culture shock of the worst, and most expensive kind, with time pressure that these Davids aren’t prepared or trained to handle.

In going from the current “first to invent” to the new “first to file” regime mandated by the America Invents Act (AIA), much attention has been focused on the amorphous “grace period” provision provided to patent applicants for certain activities undertaken by them prior to filing for a U.S. patent. Much less attention was paid to the amendments made to sections 203(c)(2) and 203(c)(3) of the Bayh-Dole compliance obligations which were directly impacted by this change in definition from the old “statutory bar” provision (based on publication, on sale, or public use of the invention caused by the patent applicant), to this new “grace period” provision. But even more astounding (and unsettling) are the unrecognized consequences caused by the AIA in “realistically” meeting certain Bayh-Dole compliance obligations by going from the current “first to invent” to the new “first to file” regime.

The reality is that from 1790 to 1836 patents were given to the first to file. Between 1836 and 1870 a panel of arbitrators would decide disputes between conflicting patents and patent applications, but were not required to grant the patent to the first and true inventor. Moreover, even with the passage of the Patent Act of 1870, the first act that specifically and unambiguously gives the Patent Office the authority to grant a patent to one who is not the first to file, the power to grant to the first to invent is conditional, not mandatory. This permissive language persists through the Patent Act of 1939, and ultimately into the regime we have today, which was ushered in by the 1952 Patent Act.

The man who secretes his invention makes easier and plainer the path of no one. He contributes nothing to the public. Over and over has it been repeated that the object of the patent system is, through protection, to stimulate inventions, and inventors ought to understand that this is for the public good. Where an invention is made and hidden away, it might as well never have been made at all,–at least so far as the public is concerned. The law owes nothing to such an inventor, and to permit him to lie in wait, so to speak, for one who, independently and in good faith, proceeds to make and disclose to the public the same invention, would be both unjust and against the policy of the patent laws. In the eyes of the law he is not the prior inventor.

Simply stated, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit and even early political and judicial leaders of the United States all envisioned the truth that one can legitimately be called an inventor even though they are not the first to invent. Unlike the many arguing in this debate I will actually prove this if you keep reading, which actual citation to cases and statutes. You see, when truth is on your side it is easy to come up with support for your argument. Sadly, those who want to challenge truth don’t provide citation to cases, they simply think that the passion of their beliefs ought to be enough to will their erroneous statements accurate.