Most inventors know that a healthy amount of paranoia goes a long way when dealing with an idea or invention. Ideas cannot be protected, so if you tell others they are free to use them unless they have signed an agreement saying they will pay you if they use your idea — good luck with that!
Inventions can be patented, but if you start telling others about your invention they could make and use your invention, which has immediate negative consequences for the patenting of the invention. Outside the United States many, if not most, countries follow an absolute novelty standard, which means you need a patent application on file before any public activity associated with the invention. Since March 16, 2013, the United States is also a first inventor to file jurisdiction. There are exceptions, but extraordinarily narrow exceptions. So narrow are the exceptions to first inventor to file prevails that they are hardly worth mentioning and not at all worth relying upon. So you really need to consider the law as rather black and white — file first before doing anything public.
Of course, the advice about filing first, which everyone should follow, begs the question about exactly how much paranoia is too much paranoia? After all, many inventors are going to need assistance from someone in order to bring their invention into being.
First, inventors need to know who can be trusted with your invention, and the short answer is not many people. This prompts many to attempt to secure a signed confidentiality agreement prior to disclosing their invention. By all means do try and obtain a confidentiality agreement if possible, we have free sample confidentiality agreements here on IPWatchdog.com that you can use at your discretion. Having said this, don’t be surprised if the other party does not want to sign. This is because prior to the signing of the confidentiality agreement no liability existed for the party receiving the information. After the signing of the agreement liability exists and there is no guarantee that anything of value has been conveyed in exchange, but liability has been created.
I am a big fan of provisional patent applications, and they can be a very useful tool, but only when they are done right. When a provisional patent application is done poorly you not only don’t get any benefit, the filing potentially demonstrates that as of that moment you were not in possession of an invention, which could be catastrophically bad.
Poorly done provisional patent applications are almost certainly useless for their intended purpose, but can be used against the inventor later as a weapon to demonstrate there was no invention, or at least that the invention had not ripened past the idea stage at the critical moment the invention was memorialized at the time of filing the provisional patent application. Therefore, it is critically important to understand what is required in a provisional patent application and not to fall prey to those who knowingly or unknowingly prey on unsophisticated inventors.
First, let me point out that there are some operating on the Internet who are peddling provisional patent courses and/or various methods for drafting provisional patent applications. Inventors and businesses need to be very wary. Not all of those courses and methods are bad, but there are at least some that have been put together by inventors who think a few patent applications make them experts on drafting patent applications. Listening to one who is not a patent attorney or patent agent about what needs to go into a patent application is a little like needing brain surgery and instead of seeking a brain surgeon asking a psychiatrist to perform the surgery since they are familiar (at least to some extent) with how the brain behaves. The first rule of brain surgery is that you need a brain surgeon! Similarly, the first rule of drafting a patent application is that you need the help of a patent professional, which means a patent attorney or a patent agent.
Generally speaking, a patent application will publish 18 months after the earliest priority date claimed. What gets published does become prior art, but the rights may never mature into an issued patent. Sometimes it can be quite interesting to look at published patent applications to get an idea about what a company or University may be working toward achieving, as Steve Brachmann does for us every week as part of our Companies We Follow series. But there are no doubt some bizarre patent applications that have published over the years, such as a method of walking through walls like a ghost. See Knowing When You Have Too Much Time on Your Hands. So you never know quite what you will get with a patent application, although the jokesters are typically kept at a minimum given the expense of filing a patent application.
Nevertheless, recently as I was talking with Paul Dougherty of The Patent Box, he indicated that he could run a search that identified the shortest patent claims. It seemed like it could be fun, and perhaps might become a new series here on IPWatchdog.com.
In terms of observations about these claims, although short some of them may be more detailed than you might think, particularly the synthetic gene that makes reference to a particular gene sequence, for example. Of course, biology and chemistry are beyond the scope of my expertise, so these claims are provided here for your consideration. Hopefully some of our regular community members, who I know do specialize in bio/chemical matters will weigh in with comments.
While the gene sequence claim is no doubt more narrow than you might think, others are almost laughably broad to the point where they have absolutely no chance of being issued. For example, there are a couple so-called omnibus claim on this list, although many were located. An omnibus claim is not allowed in the United States and basically says “I claim what is described in the specification.” That type of claiming is simply not allowed and will be summarily rejected without any meaningful, substantive examination. There are also other very short mechanical claims listed, which seem to have no chance of succeeding on a first review by the patent examiner.
There is a great misunderstanding among many inventors and entrepreneurs regarding what many simply refer to as a “provisional patent.” The first thing that needs to be said is that there is no such thing as a “provisional patent.” Instead, what you file is called a provisional patent application. Like any other patent application, a provisional patent application is effective to stop the clock relative to so-called statutory bars and immediately upon filing a provisional patent application you can say you have a “patent pending.”
Perhaps most importantly, now that the United States has become a first to file country and abandoned our historic first to invent ways (see A Brave New World — First to File Becomes Law) it is critically important to file a patent application as soon as practically possible. Filing a provisional patent application that adequately describes the invention will establish priority and satisfies the need to act swiftly under first to file rules. A well prepared provisional patent application is your best friend in a first to file world.
Of course, a provisional patent application must be understood as nothing more than the first step toward receiving a patent. Ultimately you will need to file a nonprovisional patent application in order to obtain a patent in the United States. Still, there are substantial benefits to beginning with a provisional patent application. As with most things in life, however, there are pitfalls that can and do trap the unwary and unknowledgeable.
I am frequently asked by inventors whether they should file a patent application and obtain a patent before they submit the invention to a licensing company like Lambert & Lambert.
This is an age-old question, which is really the patent/invention equivalent of the chicken or the egg. Moving forward with a patent doesn’t make a lot of sense if the invention is not likely to be marketable. I always tell folks that the best invention to patent is one you will make money with regardless of whether you ultimately obtain a patent. So I do believe there needs to be market considerations factored into the analysis. After all, the goal is to make money and investing in a business or to obtain a patent makes sense only if there is a reason to believe more money will be made than spent. Having said that, without at least a patent pending you have absolutely no protection unless you obtain a signed confidentiality agreement, which is not always easy to do. But even if you do obtain a signed confidentiality agreement that contract will only protect you with respect to those who have signed the agreement.
Without a patent pending you also don’t have anything to license other than an idea that lacks tangible boundaries. While that is not always an impediment to moving forward, the further you can develop your idea the better. The more tangible the more valuable. So an idea is worth something to some people, but an idea that has taken more shape and is really an invention is worth even more. An invention that has been defined in a provisional patent application is worth more, and of course an issued patent takes away much of the risk and questions associated with whether your invention is new and unique. But now we are getting ahead of ourselves. The business of inventing needs to be considered a marathon — not a sprint. Take things one step at a time, proceed deliberately and invest little by little and only so long as it makes financial sense. See Financially Responsible Inventing. That is why starting with a provisional patent application is frequently the best thing to do.
A patent is a proprietary right granted by the United States federal government to an inventor who files a patent application with the United States Patent Office. Therefore, unlike copyright and trademark protection, patent protection will only exist upon the issuance of a patent, which requires you to file a patent application. You absolutely must file a patent application and have that application mature into an issued patent in order to obtain exclusive rights to your invention.
Furthermore, despite what you may have been told or read, keeping a detailed invention notebook, even if you mail a description of the invention to yourself, provides no exclusive rights. It has always been extremely important to keep detailed invention records in case you ever need to prove the particular date you invented. Notice the use of past tense in the previous sentence. On March 16, 2013, the United States moves to a first inventor to file system, which significantly changes U.S. patent law. For all intents and purposes inventors would do themselves well to assume that first inventor to file meansfile first!
That being said, there is a very limited grace period that is far more narrow than anything the U.S. has previously had. Inventors should not, in my opinion, rely on the grace period whatsoever — it is extraordinarily narrow. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that in some very limited circumstances it will be necessary to demonstrate that someone else derived your invention from you after you disclosed your invention. The only way to be able to hope to prove that will be with detailed records. Thus, record keeping should become more robust moving forward. You will not only need records that relate to how and when you arrived at the invention, but you will need records about how and when you disclosed your invention. Still, filing some kind of patent application as soon as possible will be the best move.
When filing a patent application it is extremely important to make sure that the invention is as fully described as possible. Patent attorneys say this all the time, but what does it really mean? How do you “fully describe” an invention in a patent application?
The answer is that you always want to have as much information about the invention as possible. You want to very broadly and generally describe the invention, but you also need to have high specific discussion of the various nuances of each and every aspect of the invention. Frequently inventors will say to me, “but I don’t want to be highly specific because then it will be easy for someone to get around my invention.” This is typically following with a very confident: “Therefore, I will only generally describe my invention without mentioning to many specifics.” That is a tragic mistake.
What happens if the patent examiner finds the broad, general description of your invention to be in the prior art? If you don’t have nuances described in your specification what will happen is you will get a rejection that is impossible to overcome. Those nuances are going to be how you distinguish your invention over the prior art, both the prior art you know about when you file but more importantly the prior art that you didn’t know about and couldn’t have known about because it hadn’t yet been published prior to your filing.
Typically blog roll links are not helpful to a website's rank. To give some additional "link love" to those we think you might be interested in reading we have moved our blog roll and links to a dedicated page. Go to IPWatchdog Blog Roll & Links.