37,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
As individuals and companies realise the importance of their inventions, issues surrounding patent laws and practices are taking centre stage around the world.
Patent Strategy introduces researchers to patent applications and patent portfolios. With minimum use of ‘legal jargon’ it provides the technical professional with the assistance and advice they require to understand the legal complexities that they may encounter before and during a patent application. It also discusses the responsibilities of the researcher after patent applications have been filed and the role the researcher can play in the maintenance of a global patent estate.
This updated edition of the best selling book has been expanded to keep pace with modern day movements and addresses the global issue surrounding intellectual property. Including new information on areas such as software and biotechnology it shows the techniques that can be used by individuals and academic inventors to protect their work and is the ideal reference source.
- Bridges the gap between the legal system and scientific research and avoids legal jargon
- Details the reasons behind patents, their importance and relevance to all researchers and the strategy needed for filing for a patent
- Focuses on the strategy and reasons rather than just being a textbook of patent law
- Presents an overview of tools a researcher can use while working with a patent attorney or agent
- Adopts a readable style that explains the basics right up to developing a strategy
- Essential reading for all those who wish to keep pace and protect their work
Reviews from previous edition:
"...I can recommend it for technology managing types. Does a nice job of explaining many aspects of the patent system and patent strategies with a minimum of jargon and case citations..."
—Internet Patent News
"...provides an enlightened approach to a complex subject. It is relatively easy to read and follow..."
— Polymers Paint and Colour Journal
"This handy book provides the researcher with useful guidance on how to maximize the benefit of their inventiveness to themselves and their organization".
—Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 445
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012
Ähnliche
The ideas expressed in this book are the author's and are not those of E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. The content of the book should not be used as a substitute for professional patent counsel.
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Preface
Preface to the Second Edition
Preface to the First Edition
About the Author
Chapter 1: Basic Intellectual Property Concepts
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Basic Patent Law Concepts
1.3 Patent Office Operations
1.4 Requirements for Obtaining a Patent
1.5 Types of Patents
1.6 Parts of a Patent
1.7 The Term of a Patent
1.8 Provisional Protection
1.9 Definitions of Commonly Used Terms
1.10 International Treaties
1.11 The Paris Convention
1.12 The Patent Cooperation Treaty
1.13 The European Patent Convention
1.14 The African Intellectual Property Organization
1.16 Eurasian Patent Convention
1.17 Copyrights, Trademarks, and Trade Secrets
1.18 Other Resources
Chapter 2: The Value of Patents
2.1 Exclusivity—The Desired Goal
2.2 The Mechanics of Achieving Exclusivity in a Technology Area
2.3 Traps and Misconceptions—What Patents Can'T Do
2.4 The Informational Value of Patents
2.5 Assigning Value to Patents
2.6 Licensing of Patents
Chapter 3: Developing a Strategy
3.1 Professional Help
3.2 Determining Whether or Not an Invention is Patentable
3.3 Defining Strategy
3.4 The Principles Behind the Strategy—The Military Model
3.5 Developing a Patent Strategy Model
3.6 Developing a Patent Strategy for an Invention
3.7 Developing a Patent Strategy for a Series of Inventions
3.8 Developing a Strategy for an Existing Product
3.9 Developing a Strategy for Licensing Patents
3.10 Developing a Strategy for Handling a Potentially Adverse Patent
3.11 Developing a Strategy for Oddball Inventions
3.12 Dealing with Inventors When Patent Applications are Not Filed
3.13 Coordination of Other Strategies and Patent Strategy
Chapter 4: Researching with Intellectual Property in Mind
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Characteristics of Prolific Inventors
4.3 Characteristics of Casual Inventors
4.4 The Inventive Process
4.5 Fostering Inventive Activity
4.6 Suggestions on How to Conduct Research for Stronger Patents
Chapter 5: Infringement and Freedom to Operate
5.1 Types of Infringement
5.2 Avoiding Patent Infringement
5.3 DEALING WITH INFRINGERS
5.4 Research Disclosures and Journal Articles
5.5 Published Patent Applications and Provisional Patent Coverage
Chapter 6: Working with Attorneys, Agents, and Patent Liaisons
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Preparing for the Legal World
6.3 Actions to Take Before Meeting with the Agent
6.4 Typical Working Arrangements with Agents
6.5 The Researcher's Responsibility for Technical Details
6.6 Aloofness
6.7 Experimentation for the Patent Application
6.8 Patent Liaisons and Other Intellectual Property Professionals
Chapter 7: Disclosure and Filing Decisions
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Controlling the Disclosure of Technology
7.3 The Filing Decision
7.4 Filing Globally
7.5 Compulsory Licensing
7.6 The Cost of Broadly Filed Patent Applications
7.7 The Legal Systems of Individual Countries
7.8 Techniques for Determining which Countries Will be of Value
7.9 World Growth and Economic Power
7.10 Templates
7.11 Timing of Application Filings
7.12 Global Experts
7.13 Agreement with Strategy
Chapter 8: After the Filing
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Anticipating the First Response from a Patent office
8.3 Modification of Claims
8.4 Research After the Filing
8.5 Maintaining Cohesion
8.6 Issuance and Maintenance of Patents
Chapter 9: The Future of Intellectual Property Efforts
References
Further Reading
Index
This edition first published 2013
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Registered office
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom
For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com.
The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
The publisher and the author make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every situation. In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of experimental reagents, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each chemical, piece of equipment, reagent, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. The fact that an organization or Website is referred to in this work as a citation and/or a potential source of further information does not mean that the author or the publisher endorses the information the organization or Website may provide or recommendations it may make. Further, readers should be aware that Internet Websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. No warranty may be created or extended by any promotional statements for this work. Neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for any damages arising herefrom.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Knight, H. Jackson.
Patent strategy for researchers and research managers / H. Jackson Knight.– 3rd ed.
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN 978-0-470-05774-2 (cloth)– ISBN 978-0-470-05775-9 (pbk.) 1. Patent laws and legislation– United States– Popular works. I. Title.
KF3120.Z9K58 2013
346.7304′86– dc23
2012032330
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Print ISBN: Cloth 9780470057742
Paper 9780470057759
To Joy…whose love and patience make all things possible
Preface
Few researchers and managers have even a limited appreciation of the ongoing and continual flux in many areas of intellectual property. Since the publication of the first edition of this book in 1996, many countries have taken steps to strengthen and improve the quality of their patenting systems. These changes include significant changes to the patent laws, patent office rules, and significant rulings by courts that affect the interpretation of intellectual property laws. In addition, like almost every other part of society, the use of electronic resources has dramatically impacted the evaluation, acquisition, and use of intellectual property. Further, new types of ‘technology’ have caused governments to examine whether or not they will allow researchers to obtain patent protection on certain new developments.
The aim of all editions of Patent Strategy has been to present universal strategy concepts that are useful to researchers and research managers. One aim of this new third edition is to discuss some of the major features and new strategic considerations brought about by the passage in the United States of the America Invents Act. One major feature of this Act is to change the United States law that sought to grant the patent for an invention to the first person that could show that they had rightfully first made the invention; the Act provides for a new system that grants the patent to the first inventor of an invention that actually files for the patent in the patent office. This and other considerations such as post-grant review will have a major effect on the acquisition of patents in the United States.
When I wrote the first edition, I never expected the patent laws to remain in flux and change to the degree they have. The original patent law section (Chapter 1) was provided as an introduction, designed to help the reader understand certain patent basics on which to develop certain strategic concepts. In addition, many of the changes in the last 15 years have occurred in the mechanics of obtaining patents and some deal with exceptions and nuances of the law. Further, there are very important questions that have remained unanswered as the laws change and the various courts render their opinions. Still, this third edition tries to provide a basic understanding of patents that should be augmented by other resources.
When the first edition was written, my advice to inventors was to get professional help—of the patent agent or attorney type—when attempting to obtain a patent. Today, I even more strongly encourage an inventor not to try to generate their own patent application if they want to have a strong patent position. Obtaining an enforceable patent has become more and more complex over the past 20 years, such that even patent professionals have a difficult time remaining current with the patent laws. Further, the cost of obtaining and maintaining patents worldwide has also grown, prompting a very careful review of the number of countries in which patent protection is wanted or required. Therefore, in today's world an inventor absolutely needs a patent professional's advice.
One obvious area of change that we have all experienced is in the area of new electronic resources. Those resources have made the communication with patent offices easier and have made many more potential prior art references easily accessible and searchable. Copies of patents and applications are more accessible, and some patent offices even provide machine translations. Further, in many instances, not only can the status of issued patents be determined online, but the status of patent applications can also be determined easily and quickly.
Country governments and patent offices continue to struggle with the patentability of newer technologies. Computer-related inventions beg the question of what can be thought of as patentable subject matter. Biological and genetic inventions go to the core of what is present in nature, and also elicit a moral and/or ethical response in some.
Still, since the publication of the first edition a tremendous number of countries have recognized the value of having a seemingly predictable legal climate for intellectual property. Many countries that had not previously signed cooperative patent treaties have now done so, making the mechanics of obtaining patents less complicated. Consequently it is now easier to obtain patents in more countries than ever before.
Some countries now claim to provide patent protection on certain types of inventions, such as pharmaceuticals, that they previously specifically excluded from protection. However, countries have also attacked this exclusive right via compulsory licensing laws, forcing patent owners to relinquish some of their exclusivity based on the perception the patent owner was overpricing their invention and not being ‘fair’ to society.
The patenting system has always attempted to be fair, both to the inventor and to society. If the invention is truly patentable, then it is fair the inventor gets a patent. If the invention is not patentable and is already essentially part of society (i.e. public), then is it fair not to be issued a patent. It is fair for the inventor to profit from his invention, because he has invested his effort and attention and also his funds while developing the invention. Some inventors of important inventions have become rich from their inventions in part because of the legal protection the patent system provides. Many of these inventors have had to deal with claims that they were making exorbitant profits from their patented invention. These seemingly exorbitant profits have in part led some to opine that patents are unfair to society and should be eliminated. These critics of the patenting system fail to realize that the development of technology is driven in part by the thought that such an exclusive position can be achieved, and that lasting wealth can be created. These critics also fail to realize that very, very few patents achieve this type of exclusivity or generate this type of wealth. For every such valuable patent there are thousands of patents that do not provide a broad exclusive position or any wealth to the owner, but do communicate a bit of technology from which others can learn and build.
Not all inventors of important new inventions have profited from having patents. Some inventors have mismanaged the commercial development of their invention, others have simply made bad decisions, and still others have been victim of unforeseen circumstances or have had bad luck. While this book cannot claim to help with all these issues, it is hoped that it will help potential inventors and those performing and managing research to understand some of the fundamental concepts and, with the help of a patent agent or attorney, obtain the patent rights they are legally due.
H. J. Knight Midlothian, Virginia May 2012
Preface to the Second Edition
Since the first publication of this book, the world of intellectual property has taken center stage around the world as countries realize the value of having consistent and enforceable patent systems and as companies and inventors attempt to obtain patents globally which are vital to their business. There have been changes throughout the spectrum of the intellectual property world. The harmonization of patent laws and practices has continued. Countries have had to deal with patent issues concerning such things as software and biotechnology, two fields where much was previously unpatentable. The internet has made the acquisition of technology and copies of patent publications a simple matter; both are available to the most remote and independent type of inventor. Much has been written on maximizing the return from the patents a company owns. Emphasis has been placed on making sure one audits the patents they have, licensing any patents which can provide additional revenue, and finally making sure that one obtains some type of patent protection on their business methods which utilize computers.
Regardless of the technology, all potential inventors need a good foundation of understanding of the patenting system, and this is what this book attempts to provide. This book is not meant to be an advanced text of all the possible strategies available to an inventor or a company. It remains a basic guide for the inventor; a source of information to read and then keep for further reference. College students should find this information very valuable because rarely are they exposed to patents until they have earned their degree. Patent agents and attorneys may find some new ideas in this book; however, the primary use for this book is as a guidebook for their clients.
One issue that was perhaps underemphasized in the first edition was that the information contained in this book applies to all types of inventors. Much of the information will be readily applicable to inventors in corporate technical organizations. Despite the fact that the author also has a background in a corporate technical organization, independent inventors and academic inventors will also obtain benefit from a study of the information in this book. The concepts expressed here are applicable widely across many different types of products and patent types.
My intent with the first edition of this book was to write a book which needed very little updating, and in many respects that was accomplished. However, there has been a constant flux in the patent law over the past few years so some changes are now necessary. The book still retains its general tone; this is not an in-depth guide of all of the quirks of the latest patent law changes, but rather an overview of tools one can use while working with a patent attorney or agent.
Chapter 1 on Basic Intellectual Property Concepts has been updated to include some of the major new changes in patent laws and additional clarifying information on basic concepts and international treaties. New concepts have been added on the informational value of patents in Chapter 2 on The Value of Patents. Some additional strategy techniques have been added to Chapter 3 on Developing a Strategy.
From a book construction standpoint, a major change in this book is a reorganization and streamlining of the remaining chapters to eliminate duplication that was present in the original book. New sections were added throughout these chapters also. Chapter 4 on Researching with Intellectual Property in Mind has been expanded to include more information on how proficient inventors get ideas and invent. A new Chapter 5 on Infringement and Freedom to Operate adds important information to better help one understand this important facet of intellectual property. The remaining chapters were also updated and clarified throughout. Additional information was included in the Reference sections at the end of the book along with a new index.
I have many new friends because of this book, and I am grateful for the many kind words that have been said. I want to thank my supervisor Paul Pearlman for his support of this second edition. I remain indebted to all the attorneys I have worked with throughout my career, and I believe I have learned something from all of them. However, I want especially to thank Robert Shafer for his help and advice with all types of intellectual property matters. I wish him the best as he starts his well-deserved retirement later this year.
H. J. Knight Midlothian, Virginia October 1, 2000
Preface to the First Edition
When I told a friend of mine, a patent lawyer, that I wanted to write a book on patent strategy, he gave me a quizzical look and said, ‘That's quite a task. You could write several volumes and still not cover it all.’ And right he was. From a legal standpoint, each patent application is different, so the strategy developed for each application is different. So, any book on patent strategy must both limit and focus the content for a particular audience.
The purpose of this book is to introduce the technical professional to strategic thinking as applied to patent applications and patent portfolios. An additional purpose is to introduce intellectual property concepts to the researcher to enable the researcher to work successfully with attorneys in the development of patent applications. This book will help both researchers and research managers understand how better patents can be obtained for inventions, and how to develop an entire portfolio of patents to protect intellectual properties.
My goal is to present these ideas and techniques in a straightforward manner with as little ‘legalese’ as possible. However, patents are legal documents, and you can never remove all of the legal terms and concepts from a discussion of patents. I will also attempt to provide global patent information which will be useful to the average researcher, while not attempting to provide all the details a researcher may need in dealing with patents. To do so would be an impossible task.
Since I was once a researcher and I work with researchers every day, I realize that ‘working on patents’ is not what most researchers want to do. Typically, it requires a fair amount of writing, performing experiments only for the sake of the patent application, and working with attorneys and ‘legalese’, none of which sound appealing to a researcher. Still, patents can provide a business with a competitive advantage and can help improve the professional standing of the inventor. While most researchers feel confident with the technical content of patents, most successful researchers at some point in their career must also deal with the much less comfortable legal aspects of patents.
Whether you are in academia or industry, this book will help you understand patents and the patenting process from a different perspective than ‘patent law’ books. This book deals less with the specifics of the law, and instead attempts to lead the researchers to a higher conceptual plane to review some of the philosophical and practical concepts which result because of the patent laws. In so doing, I hope to help you understand how attorneys and intellectual property professionals tend to look at patents, and help you understand such things as why your invention ends up being described the way it is in a patent application.
Another purpose of this book is to identify how to develop a strategy for preparing the best possible patent applications, obtaining the best possible patents, and generating the best possible patent portfolio for your business. As you will see in the following chapters, a strategy can be developed either very narrowly, such as to address the very specific issues in a single patent application, or can be developed broadly for an entire business.
If you are employed by a large industrial company which has both intellectual property specialists, or patent liaisons, in addition to patent attorneys or agents, you can also benefit from this book. These specialists are normally technically trained professionals, employed to work with both inventors and the patent attorneys to coordinate the filing of patent applications. While their role can vary with differing organizations, intellectual property specialists typically provide information to help determine whether or not researchers have made patentable inventions and make sure the business implications of patents are being adequately addressed in the preparation of patent applications. Although most intellectual property specialists and patent liaisons should already be familiar with the concepts in this book, they will never understand an invention as well as the inventor. If inventors can learn just a few concepts of basic patent strategy, they can dramatically impact the patents which are filed on their inventions. Unfortunately, because most researchers and research managers do not work with patents on a routine basis, they normally don't have an opportunity to develop an expertise in patent strategy and many times major mistakes are made, resulting in a company obtaining far less legal protection than could have been obtained.
If you do not have the benefit of company patent specialists, then you will need to take on more responsibility and play an even more important role in the patenting process. This book will provide you with the basic concepts of patent strategy to help you obtain the best possible protection for your intellectual property.
Chapter 1 deals with basic concepts of intellectual property. While this book is not a patent law book, the researcher does need to know certain basic concepts in order to fully use this book. This chapter is designed to provide a foundation on basic patent law concepts on which to build the rest of the book. Since this is not a patent law book, the topics are covered fairly briefly; I encourage the reader to obtain some of the other references listed at the end of the book which will provide more detailed patent law information.
Chapter 2 discusses the reasons to obtain patents and introduces strategic thinking as applied to patents. Chapter 3 continues this process by defining what is meant by the word strategy and outlining the issues one should consider in developing a strategy for a business or a particular patent application. Chapter 4 extends the strategic thinking process, introducing global patent issues which should be considered by researchers and research managers.
Chapter 5 discusses how inventors invent and how the researcher can approach his research to obtain the best possible patent. Chapter 6 reviews what researchers should expect when working with attorneys, agents, and other patent professionals, and what responsibilities the researcher has with respect to the preparation of the patent application.
The last two chapters deal with issues that arise after the research is complete. If your invention isn't patentable, you must decide whether to disclose the work you have completed, or keep it secret. Chapter 7 reviews issues to consider when making these decisions. Also, during the patent examining process in the patent office, the legal description of your invention can change, therefore perhaps changing the value of your patent. Chapter 8 discusses the responsibilities of the researcher after patent applications have been filed and the role the researcher can play in the maintenance of a global patent estate. Finally, the references used in the preparation of this book and references for further reading are included at the end of the book.
A few formalities should be mentioned. While masculine pronouns are used throughout, this is done only out of convenience and no slight is intended toward women in any way whatsoever; also, the generic term patent agent has been used throughout, recognizing a patent agent may or may not be an attorney of law. In those cases where a patent attorney is truly needed, I have tried to point that out; otherwise, for the purposes of this book the terms agent and attorney should be interchangeable. Finally, while I have tried to present the concepts in a complete manner, I find there is always an exception when one discusses anything dealing with law. Therefore, any description of the concepts will be lacking in some manner or may not hold under some circumstance. The concepts included here are to help focus the thoughts of a researcher in an area the researcher has not normally considered; in so doing, some concepts have been simplified. While this book will be helpful in introducing new concepts, in the final analysis, the researcher or research manager should rely on their own patent attorney or agent for advice in their particular situation. This book is not a substitute for professional patent and intellectual property help.
My own troubles in developing patent strategy as an intellectual property professional led to this book. As a patent specialist, I wanted a guidebook to help me establish patent strategy, but I found little in the open literature. I also wanted to help educate researchers, because I found most researchers were interested, but they lacked sufficient knowledge to establish a strategy themselves. My thoughts are contained in this book. As a chemical engineer, they pertain to, in general, the chemical industry, however, they should have value in other industries. I hope you find them useful.
I am greatly indebted to my wife Joy for her support during the writing of this book. She sacrificed her time and activities to tend to our family on many a weekend and weeknight so that I could barricade myself in front of my computer. I thank her from the bottom of my heart.
I would also like to thank my current supervisor at E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., Roger Hailstone; and my former supervisor, Bob DiLuccio, for their support of me and my efforts in the writing of this book. In addition, I'd like to specifically thank my co-worker Bob Shellenbarger for his help in proofreading the document.
In addition, I have been fortunate to work with many outstanding people that I wish to thank. These include the current and former members of the DuPont Fibers' Intellectual Property Management Group, especially my mentor Carl Bostic, now retired, who helped me to get started in intellectual property work. I would also like to thank company attorney Bob Shafer for his legal advice and help in all sorts of patent matters, and his attempts to help me understand the true value of patents; I also thank him for his comments in proofreading the document.
H. J. Knight Midlothian, Virginia April 29, 1995
About the Author
H. Jackson Knight is a Patent Agent and Team Leader with the E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc., where he has over 30 years experience in many different phases of technology development, including process engineering and operation, research and development, and applications research. He has been working in patent matters for over 20 years and is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from Auburn University in 1982 and a Master of Engineering degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Virginia in 1994. Currently he helps manage intellectual property for the businesses of DuPont Protection Technologies.
Chapter 1
Basic Intellectual Property Concepts
1.1 Introduction
To develop a patent strategy, a researcher or a research manager must be familiar with certain intellectual property concepts, and this chapter is designed to provide that intellectual property foundation. As stated in the Preface, this book is not a ‘patent law’ book. There are many ‘patent law’ books on the market and many continuing education courses that teach patent law fundamentals. This book will attempt to provide the researcher or research manager with the minimum information required to help develop an intellectual property or patent strategy with a patent professional. Patent professionals—patent attorneys and patent agents that prepare, file, and prosecute patent applications; patent liaisons that coordinate patent filings in larger companies; and information specialists that search the prior art—all play an important part in the development of the overall strategy of a business. The researcher's exact involvement with these professionals will depend in great part on whether or not the inventor is a private researcher or an employee of a large corporation.
In any case, the researcher will still need to rely on professionals for help with patent law matters. There are three reasons for this. First of all, it is impossible to cover all aspects of global patent law in one chapter. The second reason is that, while one can develop and implement a patent strategy, should there be a need to interpret patents legally, the best person to provide guidance in patent law and negotiate the legal realm is a good patent attorney. Finally, laws are not like fundamental scientific principles; they are at the mercy of governments, and laws change, sometimes dramatically. Again, a patent agent or attorney should be able to keep up with these changes and advise on how they impact research work. There are no better examples of the need for the help of a knowledgeable patent attorney or agent than the recent developments in high growth areas like biotechnology, software, business methods, and the internet. Change is occurring in these areas at a high rate, not only in the generation of inventions, but also in the methods by which these inventions are protected. Over the last few years, countries around the world have had a constant flow of new laws affecting the patentability of inventions in these areas. Patent offices have also had a steady stream of new guidelines, rules, and regulations affecting patent applications in these same areas. Only a patent attorney or agent can possibly keep up with all of these changes. A researcher can get an idea of the extent of the changes by looking to the internet. A quick check of intellectual property pages will reveal the massive number of new issues involved in these technology areas. It is hoped that the information presented here will be of a basic nature, so that it will not appreciably change in the near future.
1.2 Basic Patent Law Concepts
A patent is a legal grant by a government. Governments establish patent systems and grant patents to encourage innovation, technical development, and ultimately economic prosperity. The terms of the grant are quite simple; in return for disclosing an invention publicly so that others can learn from it, and paying the processing fees, the government of the country will grant the inventor of the invention the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention for a limited period of time.
The first and most fundamental concept to learn about patents is that patents do not give the patent owner the right to practice the invention claimed in the patent, but only to exclude others from practicing this invention. The patent owner may only practice his invention as long as it, or any part of it, is not covered in a valid patent by someone else.
For example, say a researcher hears about a new ceramic material that has been developed, and for illustration purposes, let's say the ceramic material has the chemical name of ‘X’. Further, let's say the researcher's commercial interest in this ceramic is in coffee mugs, because when a coffee mug is made from ‘X’, the coffee can be kept hot indefinitely. The researcher obtains a patent in many different countries having the following claim:
The practical result of the research obtaining this claim is that in those countries where he has obtained a patent, he can theoretically stop another person or company from making or selling any kind of container made from ‘X’. (The word ‘theoretically’ is used, because the researcher will have to enforce his patent by taking the infringer to court; the court will determine whether or not the patent is valid and infringed.) The claim, however, does not give the researcher the right to make or sell containers containing ‘X’. The researcher can legally make or sell containers containing ‘X’ only if in so doing he doesn't infringe a patent held by another. If the inventor of the ceramic ‘X’ has a patent, say with claims like:
The researcher will infringe the ceramic inventor's patent if the researcher makes his own ceramic when he makes his coffee mugs. The inventor's patent is said to dominate the researcher's patent, and if the researcher wants to make coffee mugs using the ceramic, he will need to work out some arrangement with the inventor of the ceramic.
The second basic concept to understand is that a patent is only effective in the country of issue, and legal concepts and questions about ‘What is patentable?’ and ‘What constitutes a valid patent?’ can be interpreted differently in different countries. Since patents are grants from the governments of countries, and all countries are different, then it follows that patent laws will be different in every country around the world. However, countries have realized that cooperative treaties that allow inventors to file patents easily are beneficial in that they provide additional revenue in the form of patent fees, and strong cooperative intellectual property laws provide incentive for businesses to invest in these countries. These cooperative treaties have harmonized some of the basic procedures and requirements for obtaining patents from country to country, although substantial differences still remain in the actual patent law.
A third fundamental concept is that while different countries can have different patent laws, all governments attempt to grant patent rights to the correct inventor(s) or owners of the invention under those laws. However, these patent rights must be claimed by filing a patent application. There have been many stories of the same invention being developed independently by different inventors, with only one inventor obtaining the patent because the government determined that inventor, by law, was due the patent.
In most countries of the world, if two inventors apply for the same invention, the inventor who first submits his application to the government gets the patent. Therefore, in these ‘first-to-file’ countries there is an obvious premium placed on being the first inventor to the patent office to stake your claim. An inventor needs to file his patent application as soon as possible after making the invention to avoid having another inventor possibly preempt his patent rights.
For many years the law in the United States has been different, likely due to the Constitution's emphasis on ‘securing’ rights to inventors for their discoveries. The intent of the law was that the first true inventor should receive the patent rights, not necessarily the first inventor to file his patent application. Therefore, the United States has had a ‘first-to-invent’ system, where the inventor's own personal records of invention could be used to prove an invention date prior to any filing of a patent application. While the ‘filing date’ was important, the ‘invention date’ was even more important, should two inventors independently invent and file on the same invention. The United States has been essentially unique with regard to this provision.
However, US patent law was significantly changed on September 16, 2011, when patent reform legislation was signed into law after many years of negotiation and delay. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) makes a number of significant changes to US patent law to be phased in over 18 months after passage. In addition, the patent law is made more complicated in that certain provisions of the old law will continue to apply for patents granted and patent applications filed prior to the enactment of the new laws.
While many of the provisions of the new law can affect patent strategy, none affects the inventor more than the change that comes into effect on March 16, 2013. Starting that day, the United States moves from being a ‘first-to-invent’ to a ‘first-to-file’ country, although some believe the proper wording should be the ‘first-inventor-to-file’ country. This brings the United States into alignment with most other countries, which are ‘first-to-file’ countries. In any case, this new law adds increased emphasis on the filing of patent applications as soon as possible after an invention has been made.
1.3 Patent Office Operations
Countries set up patent offices to handle the processing of patent applications and the granting of patents. As one might expect, each patent office will have its own rules, regulations, and procedures. While some disputes may be resolved within the individual patent offices, in general, any unresolved dispute will ultimately be settled in the court system of the country.
Although the patent offices of different countries have different procedures, the basic steps taken to obtain a patent are fairly uniform. Assuming a researcher has made an invention, the researcher has a patent agent prepare a patent application and send it to a patent office (that is, ‘file’ the patent application), along with any required filing fees. Depending on the country, the patent office will take one of three actions. The patent office will either (1) start immediately to process the application for patentability, for example, start the examination of the application; or (2) essentially hold the application and wait for the applicant to tell the patent office to examine the application; or (3) register the application without examination. In this last group of ‘registration’ countries, there is no examination of applications; the validity of the patent remains undecided until the patent owner attempts to exert the patent against another, at which time a court will decide whether or not the patent is valid and infringed. For now, let's assume the country in which the application is filed is in an examination country and examination is either automatic or the researcher's agent has asked for examination.
The examination is made by a patent examiner, who is typically a technically trained individual with knowledge of what has been patented in a particular area of technology and the formal governmental requirements for obtaining a patent. The patent examiner will look to see whether or not the application complies with all of the formal regulations and procedures and meets the requirements for the patent grant. If the application meets these requirements, the examiner will allow the application; that is, send the agent a notice stating that the patent can be granted if the applicant is willing to pay the issue fee. However, if the examiner is not convinced he will send the agent a rejection notice—a written response called an office action. The office action will state why the application has been rejected, and the examiner may make suggestions as to what is required to correct the flaws in the patent application.
The applicant or his agent then has a period of time to respond to the office action, and put forward either (1) changes in how the invention is claimed, which will address the concerns of the examiner in the form of amendments to the application; or (2) reasons why the examiner has erred and has not considered or interpreted the application properly; or (3) additions or corrections to address formal problems in the application, that is, problems not associated with the patentability of the invention, but the patent application itself, such as appropriate drawings. The applicant's response may or may not convince the examiner, and several office actions and responses may be exchanged between the applicant and the examiner before the patent is allowed.
The applicant may eventually receive a ‘final rejection’ from the examiner, which means that the examiner does not think the invention is patentable and intends to close prosecution on the application. Normally, the applicant has one final shot at convincing the examiner after a final rejection. If the applicant does not succeed in convincing the examiner, the applicant can either give up, refile the application with changes that improve the patentability of the invention, or appeal the examiner's ruling to a higher authority in either the patent office or the country courts. If an appeal is made, this essentially starts another round of negotiations with a new set of governmental eyes. All of these options require additional fees.
If the patent application is allowed during any of these stages, the applicant will be required to pay an additional fee to have the patent issue; however, the procedure to actually grant or issue the patent will vary from country to country. In addition, some countries provide for a public review period after the patent is granted, and the review procedure varies from country to country. In those countries, after the patent publishes with the granted claims, those that do not think the invention claimed is patentable can oppose the patent grant. This is typically done by filing, within the review period, an opposition document that contains reasons as to why the patent should not issue. If an opposition to the grant is filed, then the patent applicant is given a period of time to answer the assertions of the opposer, there may be an oral hearing, and an appeal is usually possible if the opposer prevails and the patent is to be amended or revoked. Depending on the strength of the opposition, the patent may be totally revoked, may re-issue with modified claims, or may be confirmed with the original claims.
After the issuance fee is paid and the patent has issued, the applicant will normally be required to make additional payments, called maintenance fees, to the country's government. These fees are paid during the term of the patent to maintain the patent in force. If the fees are not paid, the patent will lapse in that country and the technology claimed will be in the public domain, which means that anyone can now use that invention in that country. Governments, for the sake of economic development, want as much technology in the public domain as possible, so they encourage the abandonment of patents by increasing the amount of the maintenance fees as time goes by. In many countries, the maintenance fee amount due is also dependent on the number of claims that have been granted. A patent having 40 claims would be much more expensive throughout its life than a patent having just three claims. As a result, maintenance fees in the last few years of the patent term can be very costly because of the combination of the fee increase based on the age of the patent, and the multiplier based on the number of claims.
For many years, the content of patent applications filed in the United States was not disclosed publicly if the patent did not issue. Also, the examination of claims was done privately between the examiner and applicant, and if the claims were allowed the applicant could decide whether or not the patent would then issue. For example, if the applicant's initial claims were severely amended, the applicant might decide not to pay for the patent to issue, and all the technical information in the patent application that would be disclosed when the patent issued would instead be kept secret.
Unfortunately, this private examination also resulted in what were called ‘submarine’ patents—patents that issued on applications that took many years to examine, normally because the applicant delayed prosecution. The content of the application would remain secret, lurking in the patent office for a number of years, only for the patent to issue without warning like a submarine surfacing from the water. If the time from the filing of the patent to the issuance was a significant period, say 10 to 20 years or more, others without any knowledge of the patent application might independently develop similar technology during this time. Many found that after the issuance of a submarine patent they had to license their independently developed technology from the submarine patent holder or change to a different technology because there was no prior user right defense.
Both of these practices changed with new US laws that took in effect in 1995 and 2000, which first took away any advantage to the applicant to delay prosecution, and second provided for publication of applications filed in the United States. All filed applications are now automatically published 18 months after the priority filing, with the exception that if the application will be filed only in the United States the applicant can petition the USPTO that the application not be published.
To disseminate information about new inventions, most countries require filed patent applications to be published automatically, regardless of the patentability of the invention, 18 months after the first filing of the application. The United States does provide an exception to this, in that if the applicant intends to file the application only in the United States and forego any foreign filings, he can petition the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) not to automatically publish the application. In addition, in the United States an applicant can also have his patent application published at a time earlier than 18 months after the first filing, if desired.
1.4 Requirements for Obtaining a Patent
The first requirement to obtain a patent is that the invention be ‘new’. ‘New’ is interpreted differently in different countries, but there are some general guidelines that are useful. As one might think, ‘new’ means the invention has not been known before. In most cases, this means there has been no written public record of the invention, and no public disclosure of the invention. Many countries in the world are ‘absolute novelty’ countries, the word ‘new’ and ‘novel’ being used interchangeably. That is, any public disclosure, written or otherwise, before the filing of the patent application will prevent an inventor from obtaining a valid patent on his invention. Note that the inventor may still be able to obtain a patent on the invention, but the patent might be shown to be invalid if ever challenged in court. If an invention is disclosed at a trade show and then a patent application on the invention is filed the next day, a patent may issue. However, if someone saw the invention at the trade show, this knowledge could be used to invalidate the patent in an absolute novelty country. There can be exceptions and some countries require ‘absolute novelty’ only within their borders; that is, a simple disclosure of the invention (but generally not a publication) outside the country may not hurt the novelty of the invention.
There are ways to avoid forfeiting rights to a valid patent. In most countries of the world, if the inventor wants to show his invention to another company or individual, the inventor can have the other party sign a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement that enables the inventor to continue to operate in secret and retain patent rights.
For many years, the United States has had a unique provision in that an inventor had a one-year grace period to file his patent application after the first commercial offer for sale or public use of an invention in the United States. The new America Invents Act of 2011 makes a bit of a change to this provision. Under the new Act, as of March 16, 2013, a public disclosure of an invention, made anywhere up to one year prior to the effective filing date of the application by the inventor or someone who obtained information from the inventor, does not affect the novelty of the invention in the United States. However, if there is any public disclosure of the invention, the inventor likely loses patent rights in other ‘absolute novelty’ countries. Since many countries are in essence ‘absolute novelty’ countries, many inventors in the United States still utilize non-disclosure agreements to retain their patent rights.
The second requirement to obtain a patent is that the invention be useful. In some countries this usefulness is a requirement that the invention have some sort of industrial utility. At one time, patent applications were rarely rejected because the inventions were not useful. Almost anything was useful, and normally the things examiners rejected for usefulness were inventions that did not seem as though they would perform as stated in the application. Perpetual motion machines were commonly-cited inventions that were not ‘useful’ because perpetual motion is not possible.
However, in many countries the invention must have what is called industrial utility. In the United States, recent court rulings have raised the bar for usefulness. The words used by some to describe this higher standard are ‘substantial utility’ or ‘practical utility’.
This has most recently been applied to patents dealing with advances in genetic technology; the whole issue of utility has taken on what appears to be even more stringent requirements in this area. Many patent offices worldwide now require that patents on certain genetic material have ‘real-world’ utility, a clearly expressed use. From a practical standpoint, this means that one is better off if, in the patent application, an example is included that actually illustrates the utility of the invention. This helps avoid being saddled with what many call an alleged use or ‘throw-away’ utility that may happen if one simply lists some possible uses for a genetic invention.
The third requirement to obtain a patent is that the invention must not be, in the opinion of the examiner, an obvious extension of previous inventions or technology. In some countries, the invention is required to be a ‘technical advance’ over the prior art. This third requirement is the most hotly debated requirement in the prosecution of a patent application. The examiner will consider whether what is claimed as the invention is suggested by prior patents, or whether an individual skilled in the technology area would logically develop the invention based on reading the closest prior art. The examiner might also consider the invention as a normal optimization of some other technology. Often the issuance of a patent hinges on the applicant's response to an ‘obviousness’ rejection by the patent examiner. The formulation of this response is where patent agents quickly earn their fees, since in many cases it can be very difficult to generate a response that convinces the examiner an invention is not obvious.
A fourth requirement to obtain a patent is a patent application must be prepared that has a specific form and specific sections. While each country has its own requirements, normally the patent application will have (1) a list of claims that legally describe the invention for which a patent is desired; (2) supporting information for the invention, normally called a specification, including written examples if needed; (3) drawings of the invention, if these are required for someone to understand the invention; and (4) some declaration of ownership of the invention. Some countries require that the actual inventors be identified; others require that only the patent owner, or patent assignee, be identified. Some countries, like the United States, require disclosure to the patent office of the closest prior art known to the applicant, and any pertinent information relating to disclosures that might impact the validity of the patent. Most countries do not have this disclosure requirement.
A fifth requirement is that the applicant must pay fees. This is becoming a very important consideration, because countries have figured out that they can increase their revenue by increasing the amount and types of required patent fees. Normally, a fee is required to file the application, and a fee is required to have the patent issue. In addition, in most countries of the world, maintenance fees are required on a regular basis throughout the term of the patent or patent application to keep the patent in force or the application pending. While the fees for one country may not be prohibitively expensive, if the application is filed globally, a single invention can quickly generate a tremendous patent bill even before the cost of special patent agents, translations, and other ancillary requirements are added.
