New Patent Law

There is some concern, but the USPO has made it much easier to file a provisional application for a patent (sometimes incorrectly called a 'provisional patent'), with a relatively cheap filing fee and limited paperwork. This allows an individual or small company to establish an early filing date for a patentable idea. This buys time for the individual or small company to flesh out all of the claims, get help from an experienced patent attorney to properly word the patent and search for any related prior art, and seek some financial help if necessary to get through the process and defend the patent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_patent

Why Patent anything? The Chinese,or somebody, will copy it and ignore whoever came up with the ideas.

Ron

Hello from the rest of the world. We've be running on the "first to file" principle, or more correctly "first to publish" principle all along. Doesn't seem to suffocate applications here.

All that's happening is the USPTO is moving to align with other Patent Offices around the world.

That social observation - obviously - does not prove any point. As I observe, most solutions are not superior. Unique ones frequently are.

And, I rather sing counterpoint, than simple harmony. It is richer.

First to invent means that someone can come in at a late stage and claim the rights.

First to file resolves that issue.

Inventing is not easy but filing could be done by employing a design engineer when he get the idea from an inventor. The process should be organised in such a way that inventor gets the credit by filing invention without design details.The wrong man should not be honoured.

An idea not put into action is of no use and no value - no credit is due.

Think about a farm where hired labour do all the work. Who will get the benefit,the labourers will get their wages only while the land owner get the harvest. Similarly a design engineer can put an idea worth billions of dollars into action,but he deserves his wages only. He should not get patent.

???

Some of your legal/political theories are really weird. Please don't go into goobermint.

Good. It isn't just me.

Many things first appear to be wierd but later people accept. If majority of people accept first the world will be a good place without wars & destroying each other.

That is weird all right

Most companies make an engineer sign an agreement prior to employment that any work related inventions are the property of the company.

As ER says, the rest of the world has been doing it this way for years and it seems to work.

There is now a three year backlog, minimum, at the patent office here in the US. This may help, eventually.

Unfortunately, as long as there are lawyers, there will be efforts to steal intellectual property from the rightful owner.

The first to file doctrine might have prevented a lot of the complications and drawn out lawsuits regarding the invention of the laser, especially the lawyering by Patlex and all of the licensing lawsuits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gould

Gould spent years fighting for his patent rights. The other side of the coin is the battle between the Wright brothers and Glenn Curtiss, where the Wright brothers spent years battling Curtiss' infringement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war

So espionage will become a skill in demand, steal a nascent idea and run faster to the USPTO

What do the patent offices(USPO etc) mean by invent?. Is it the idea or calculating or designing or making/fabricating a working model?. A person may conceive a marvelleous idea but if he doesn't have the expertise or facilities to design or fabricate won't he get patent for the idea?. Different design engineers can buy the patent from him and submit a design to PO. Think about Leonardo Davinci who made sketches of many gadgets like helicopter a long time ago or Arthur C Clark who wrote fictions about space travel.

Quote, 'if he doesn't have the expertise or facilities to design or fabricate won't he get patent for the idea?'

There is a big difference between dreaming up a concept and having something you can patent. If one does not have the expertise to design the unit then he either pays someone else to do so or he has nothing.

I don't agree. Did Leonardo Da Vinci made a model of helicopter?.

So - what good was it?

What is already suffocating small companies is the massive buying up of and brokerization of patents by conglomerates of venture capitalist seeking to monopolize intellectual property and extract huge profits for just standing in the middle and paying fleets of lawyers to sue anyone and everyone. They are using the fact that they can afford to sue you to death to extract fees whether there is a basis or not. And the patent office isn't helping by granting patents that are so broadly and ambiguously written so as to defy knowing for sure what it covers forcing the final determination into the courts where he with the most money wins often just by the threat of legal action.

For a number of years I was involved in licensing of technology, international patent control, transfer of technology, etc. in the iron and steel industry, but I'm sure that field generally represented all the others, especially since it covers the world.

On the idea of industrial espionage, it goes on all the time, mainly from people changing jobs or being offerred a position from a competitor. In the long run this means nothing as the real technologists and inventors are always sought out and get to first base. The bottom line is just that, the bottom line. Given a comparable product the cost factor will prevail, in all cases, unless there is something funny going on in the background.

If an idea has any merit or potential, there will always be someone out there to take 90% ownership and give you back 10 and put your name on the certificate. But where can you do it on your own anyway? Garage? Forget it! It takes money and a sales pitch to market an idea. Look at these guys on midnight TV selling widgets for $19.99.

The real question here is will it make a difference if the USPTO changes from first to invent to first to patent, publish or whatever? The answer is no, in my view. If you can prove this was your idea, first, with the communications there is today, I believe an embarrassing situation will not be worth someone trying to steal it. Perhaps he will get the one sale but not anymore. I still find in most cases there is integrity and some honesty around.

I do think however, since we are on the subject, that if you sell or license an idea to another, it is imperative for that recipient to receive adequate information to use it without hindrence. As I've seen the results of inadequate transfer of technology in the purposeful holding back for profit and I've seen on the other side of the street the results of not willing to recognize the idea ownership or pay for the right to use it. In both cases, resulting in catastrophy and senseless safety issues.

The change prevents someone from sitting around with a note book full of things they can't figure out how to make use of until someone else shows the way.

Like I posted before, inventing the helicopter hundreds of years back was meaningless as far as being useful.

GA!

All Leonardo dis was "brain storming".

That is only the first part and usually the easiest.

It usually take years to develop an idea from dream to usable product. That step is what separate "dreamers" from "doers".

Many people have and are selling dreams that they cannot deliver on. Should we reward them by taking the taking the profits away from the ones who actually did the development work?

In my not so humble opinion, if you don't have a working prototype, you don't have much and it's worth next to nothing.

Dreamers could be placed in the equivalent of the Guinness book as the first ones who had the idea but they don't deserve any more consideration until they deliver a working prototype.

What would the developers develop if the dreamers didn't dream?

What would the singers sing if the writers didn't write? And so on...

We all have our strong points and we all need each other.

Some time ago I purchased stock in a company called Verenium. This company had developed a process to convert raw cellulose to ethanol.

Shortly after I purchased the stock BP purchased the rights to the process.

I made a very good return on my investment but knew it was time to make an exit.

My question is; does BP now have the right to withhold the application of that technology? For how long?

How does this advance the application of new technology?

Gavilan

My question is; does BP now have the right to withhold the application of that technology? For how long?

Ahh, the invention suppression conspiracy theory....

One of BPs major profit makers is the so-called petrochemical market. They break down oil to make assorted chemicals, burning it is less profitable, but simpler. To get cellulose broken down to assorted short chain sugars provides a varied feedstocks to make ethanol, as well as many other chemicals. One would think BP would keep it to itself and produce as much product as they could. That said, the idea of using enzymes to break down cellulose is hardly new or patentable. They can make a particular enzyme sequence, and patent it, but someone else can make another. If they take the best natural enzyme and optimize it with high temperature tolerance by use of sequences from extremophiles (hot spring bacteria) they might make a true winner and will run with it for a while. If we take away the walled garden within which a patent can operate for its 17 years, we might discourage the gardeners.

Invention suppression conspiracy THEORY? An example I ran into recently

Amazon bought TouchCo last year and:

"The Touchco website mysteriously shut down over the new year and all its YouTube videos set to private."

(from http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/04/amazon-has-acquired-touchco-a-multi-touch-company/)

I originally found out about this from a webpage by a musical instrument innovator who wanted use it for a music device, got engineering samples which worked great but then found out the company disappeared or went into stealth mode and could no longer get them. He found out Amazon had bought them, and figured either (a) they probably want that either to put into their kindle, or at least (b) prevent competitors from getting further ahead of them by use of the product. Or both.

Which puts the musician out of business until a similar product can be found.

Perhaps I need to rephrase my question.

I recently built a simple electronic circuit used to control the lights in an LED array that is used for off grid - low voltage lighting.

Let us suppose that this circuit is something new (which is certainly must not be).

In this scenario we will propose that I have installed 100 systems with this control system when one of the users of my circuit decided to file a patent on it.

Could I still use this circuit since I had been using far in advance of the application?

This scenario should not apply. The person who copied your circuit did not invent it, and should be ineligible to apply for a patent. Also, it would be prior art.

If his circuit operated in a special way that is not obvious to an expert and is kept secret, it is not "prior art" as it was not made public knowledge.

Trade secret can be patented by somebody else who will have the right to stop you from using the techniques that you may have commercialized for many years.

The protection scheme is there to protect those who pay tribute to the bullies authorities like any other protection scheme, legal or not.

If the later inventor discovered the process independently, that would be one thing.
If the later inventor reverse-engineered or copied the process, that would (or should) be another thing.

Whether the law addresses this properly, I wouldn't yet know. A big maybe....
Law is sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and oftentimes damned clumsy. That's one reason why there are more lawyer jokes than engineer jokes.

Agree!

1) Once a unit is sold it is no longer patentable

2) Once the item or information is in the public domain prior to a patent application the item may not be patented. Public domain being an open release of information and not theft.

That puts your device in "public domain" - as such, any patent filing is not 'novel' - so will be overturned at the slightest litigation. So the answer is yes you can continue.

The provision is; you have demonstrable proof (records) of the existence in 'public domain' prior to their date of filing - and the energy to put that in a letter, if they try to lean on you.

Tornado and 34.5:

Thanks!!!!

If someone on CR4 would describe, in detail, a novel, new, and useful process or device would that person lose the rights to that property if someone else filed a patent at some later time?

Gavilan

Once you publish it you loose it. You can proceed in that way if you have all in place and are not infringing on existing technology. Just go for it and create a brand. It makes your product less valuable for investors which might bite you in the proverbial.

Only if you trust people can you avoid a confidentiality agreement. If the people you deal with sign an NDA it is not seen as 'put in the public domain'. It is a mine field and short cuts in that terrain have to still be invented. Bang!!

Even if you knew were the mines are hidden you still need the expertise to de=mine (what pun?). You might wish to run backwards really fast one day and loose knots, ends have killed more than loose tongues.

Patience is what you possibly need most.

Good luck, Ky.

A lot of this is 'case by case'. e.g. using LED lighting in an instrument is a different application to a room, or an automobile. As such the patent is different as the application to that new use may have advantages that are 'novel'.

This may seem stupid to the technical among us, but it's the way it is in Patent world.

Additionally whatever you type here could be argued as 'public domain' or a 'professional publication', this can effect a judgment - as could the GlobalSpec copyright claim on all CR4 content.

So; without 'case' detail; the specifics and the document research as applicable, in hand - no real answer.

CR4 is an open discussion - open to all - no protection at all

The definition of 'public domain' is often topic in litigation. My point being: The courts don't know what is 'out there' any more than the Patent examiners. It's up to one or other party to bring it to their attention.

Agreed that no one knows 'what is out there' but the first to file will slow that argument down.

From when I was involved in this type of thing - trying to determine what we could or couldn't do, the lawyers were pretty clear on what public domain information was.

Russ, Is that why "apple" works on patents for any "app" they can dream up for smart phones/pads?

Apple does that as Jobs considered anything within 50 meters of an iphone as personal property.

I can't avoid Google but I CAN and DO avoid Apple!

Given enough lawyers you can patent a rock.

Example: the Bose wave radio. It is nothing more than a poorly designed Transmission Line that was in use in the 1930s. However Bose has a patent on it.

Ron

I had a patent attorney say you can patent just about anything, but that doesn't mean it's a defendable (in court) patent.

So it's not that you need a lot of lawyers to patent something....you just may need a lot (or a very good one) to defend your patent.

That is a heck of a lot more accurate. You only need one lawyer to obtain a patent - unless you want to do the donkey work yourself.

The guy that invented the intermittant windshield wiper spent 10 years and all his savings (lost his family also) to finally get a claim.

All i am saying is that if a large company wants to use your patent ,without payment, they can and will and you just hope you finally win.

They have more money that you do.

Ron

Pourly designed? I think it's pretty cool, myself.

I design Back loaded horns, if you look at the response spectrum of a Bose radio it is lumpy and some of the frequencies are MIA. There are much better designs out there on 1/4 wave TLs. Look up Martin Kings white paper on TL design.

Ron

Whether their idea (patent) and product are any good or not is relevant. If their idea was novel then they deserved a patent and the right to try to sell their idea to the public.

If the public likes it and is willing to pay them for it, good for them. If the technology is not good relative to something else for a similar price then they won't make any money off that idea and probably stop producing the product. That's how it's supposed to work.

This is super important to guys like me - after listening to different machines over 45 years of working I don't hear too much in one ear and no high or low sounds in the other!

A patent guarantees only that you (or your lawyer) has convinced the patent examiner the 'thing' is new and novel. It does not guarantee the idea is useful, will work or will ever make any money. I guess a patent guarantees one thing only - it will cost you money.

G'day Russ

It does not guarantee the idea ^(horse) is useful, will work or will ever make any money. I guess a patent ^(horse) guarantees one thing only - it will cost you money.

It is a bit like that. When I read this and compare it to horse racing it just the same. Owning a horse does not make it a champion. What a great parallel and so much going on behind the scenes.

There is always room for a dark horse, I hope, Ky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_horse

A provisional patent application can inexpensively secure your priority without the formalities of a non-provisional patent application. An engineer can write a provisional patent application and file it himself. Then you have a year to finalize the non-provisional, with the claims and formal drawings. The provisional can be informal and does not need to have any claims. You need to have a provisional application filed before you describe it to whoever will make your working model.

The thing to remember is that it must be an "enabling disclosure" -- you have to give enough information in the application (provisional or non-provisional) that a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains could make and use your invention after reading your disclosure. It doesn't have to be as explicit as shop drawings to be an "enabling disclosure." The "enabling disclosure" requirement for patentability rules out patents on vague ideas.

The subject matter must not have been in public use or published more than a year prior to your application for a patent. To avoid this, use non-disclosure agreements when discussing your idea with others, including those who you ask for help in building your invention or writing it up.

The new first-to-file law will give certainty and avoid litigation over claims of priority, which will be good for the independent inventor.

I have a question:

When is the public given access to the filed idea? Can somebody look at them before a patent is issued?

The earlier a competitor looks at your idea, the more likely he will be on the market with a work around before you.

Is this provisional application giving them a one year head start?

It becomes public when the patent is granted and letters issued.

All before is confidential. i.e, application for a provisional, lodgment of final, the examination process + amounts of argument. Then, if it is deemed novel, it is granted.

This process might take a year, or 5, meanwhile, no one outside knows the content.

If the applicant withdraws, or the final not lodged, or dropped during examination, then it disappears and no one ever knows the content. I.e. it is never cited in examination - as it was never granted. Or it is effectively deemed not to have happened.

The provisional is kept secret, and if you don't file a non-provisional within a year the provisional remains secret. The non-provisional is published, just as it was filed, with the original claims, even though no action has yet been taken on it to grant the inventor any rights. Publication of the pending non-provisional informs the rest of the world of your invention and your claim to priority. Publication is good for most inventors because it gives them a chance to get the idea out to the rest of the world and attract investment and help making their dream real.