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

• f 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
• n 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

Filing Date Invention Date

Patents – NEW § 102(a) – Novelty

“before . . . filing date”

• “(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

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

Filing Date Invalidating publication from inventor

Patents – NEW § 102(b) – Novelty

“1 year or less” OK publication from inventor

Patents – NEW § 102(a), (b)

Prior ¡ ¡ art ¡ ¡in ¡ ¡ ¡ 102(a) ¡

102 ¡(a) ¡(1) ¡ Printed ¡publica5ons, ¡ public ¡uses, ¡etc. ¡ before ¡filing ¡date ¡ ¡ ¡ 102 ¡(a) ¡(2) ¡ 1st ¡filed ¡U.S. ¡patent ¡ applica5on ¡by ¡another ¡

Excep&ons ¡ in ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ 102(b) ¡ (limited ¡ ¡ to ¡1 ¡year ¡

• nly!) ¡

102 ¡(b) ¡(1) ¡ (A) ¡Any ¡“disclosure” ¡ coming ¡from ¡the ¡ applicant ¡ ¡ (B) ¡Disclosures ¡by ¡

• thers ¡made ¡aEer ¡a ¡

“public” ¡disclosure ¡by ¡ the ¡applicant. ¡ 102 ¡(b) ¡(2) ¡ (A) ¡1st ¡ ¡filer ¡derived ¡ inven5on ¡from ¡2nd ¡

• filer. ¡

(B) ¡1st ¡filer ¡filed ¡aEer ¡ “public” ¡disclosure ¡by ¡ applicant/2nd ¡filer. ¡

Patents – AIA – Public Disclosure

• A invents an invention on Day 1. B invents the same
• n 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
• n 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
• wn 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?