Provisional application

Last updated

Under United States patent law, a provisional application is a legal document filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), that establishes an early filing date, but does not mature into an issued patent unless the applicant files a regular non-provisional patent application within one year. There is no such thing as a "provisional patent". [1]

Contents

A provisional application includes a specification, i.e. a description, and drawing(s) of an invention (drawings are required where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented [2] ), but does not require formal patent claims, inventors' oaths or declarations, or any information disclosure statement (IDS). Furthermore, because no examination of the patentability of the application in view of the prior art is performed, the USPTO fee for filing a provisional patent application is significantly lower ($60 - $240 as of August 2023 [3] ) than the fee required to file a standard non-provisional patent application. A provisional application can establish an early effective filing date in one or more continuing patent applications later claiming the priority date of an invention disclosed in the provisional application by one or more of the same inventors.

The same term is used in past and current patent laws of other countries with different meanings.

History

The provisional application was introduced to U.S. patent law with a 1994 amendment of the Patent Act of 1952. [4] A 12-month benefit of priority to foreign-filed applications had been a part of U.S. patent law since the 1901 U.S. ratification of the Brussels revision of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. [5] The 1994 introduction of the provisional application thus provided a domestic filing equivalent matching the 12-month priority benefit that had been afforded to foreign applications for the better part of the 20th century.

Characteristics

The earliest filing date of a "provisional" (application) may be very important where, for example, a statutory condition of patentability is about to expire and there is insufficient time to generate a complete non-provisional application. In many cases, a provisional is filed the same day as a public disclosure of the invention, which disclosure could otherwise permanently jeopardize the patentability in non-U.S. countries having strict requirements on "complete or absolute novelty". In other cases the provisional application is filed within a grace-period year after such a disclosure in order to preserve only the inventor's U.S. patent rights.

The date of filing of the provisional patent application can also be used as the foreign priority date for applications filed in countries other than the United States and for an international application, but not for a design patent. The filing of a provisional application triggers a review period for the U.S. license necessary for the subsequent foreign or international filings. Though the "provisional" need not be submitted in English, a translation will be required when (and if) a non-provisional application claims the benefit of the provisional.

A provisional application, as such, is never examined by the USPTO, and therefore will never become a patent on its own (unless the provisional patent application is later converted into a non-provisional patent application by the applicant, and then the application is examined as a non-provisional application). The provisional application is also not "published", but becomes a part of any later non-provisional application file that references it, and thus becomes "public" upon issuance of a patent claiming its priority benefit. [6]

A "provisional" is automatically abandoned (expires) one year after it is filed. The provisional filing date is not counted as part of the 20-year life of any patent that may issue with a claim to the provisional filing date. [6]

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced on December 8, 2010, that it was implementing a Missing Parts Pilot Program. This pilot program would provide applicants with a 12-month extension to the existing 12-month provisional application period. This pilot program would not change the requirement for an applicant to file a non-provisional application within 12 months; though it would allow additional time to reply to a missing parts notice. [7] [ needs update ]

Procedure and benefits

To obtain the benefit of the "provisional" filing date, a non-provisional patent application must be filed, claiming benefit of the filing date of one or more specific provisional patent applications, [8] prior to their expiration.

The provisional patent application is only pending for 12 months prior to becoming abandoned. Thus, filing a non-provisional patent application claiming the benefit of the provisional application must be done within 12 months. Otherwise, the rights to claim the benefit of provisional application are lost. [9]

If a non-provisional application is not expected to be filed within one year, and the patent is not otherwise barred by law, another provisional application may also be filed at any time and start another one-year period (but this does not work in all cases). [10] However, the original priority date of any expired provisional applications will be forfeited.

The provisional priority date is of little consequence for any claims in the issued patent that are not supported by the disclosure in the priority document. This makes it very important that provisional applications be sufficiently detailed. Otherwise, the validity of an issued patent may be challenged as to the priority date of its claims that purport to relate back to an insufficient "provisional". Furthermore, during the year after filing the first provisional (and prior to filing a non-provisional application), it may be useful to file additional provisional applications as improvements are made, and then claim priority of those found useful in drafting the non-provisional application(s).

One popular use of a provisional application is to document and "lock in" potential patent rights while attempting to obtain sponsors for further development (and for more expensive patent applications). This tactic may permit an inventor to defer major patent application costs until the commercial viability (or futility) of the invention becomes apparent. However, wise investors consider provisional applications in view of the long road to potential patentability, not to mention the limitations that may be defined by the prior art.[ citation needed ]

If a prior-art search during the one-year period reveals that what the inventor thought was the invention is found to be an obvious aggregation of prior-art elements or steps, the invention may still be patentable if the provisional application describes a non-obvious novel structure, element, or step. This novel structure can be claimed in the non-provisional patent application, instead of claiming the invalid aggregation.

Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) are not permitted in provisional applications. Since no substantive examination is given in provisional applications, a disclosure of information is unnecessary. Any such statement filed in a provisional application will be returned or destroyed at the option of the Office. [11]

The advantages of a provisional patent application are:

As of May 6, 2021, the USPTO small-entity filing fee is $150 for provisional patent applications having 100 or fewer pages of specification and drawings. [3] Complexity involved for a provisional application on the part of both the applicant and the USPTO is generally much less than that of a non-provisional patent application. Thus, it is possible to file a provisional patent application more quickly and cheaply than a non-provisional patent application.

It is also possible to convert a non-provisional application into a provisional, under limited circumstances (e.g., within a year of filing, when the applicant discovers a reason not to pursue the present non-provisional application).

Free and pro bono assistance

A number of free or almost-free resources exist to help inventors prepare and/or file their provisional applications. The USPTO provides information related to its patent pro bono program, which aims at assisting "inventors and small businesses that meet certain financial thresholds and other criteria ... for free legal assistance in preparing and filing a patent application." [13] The website provides links to USPTO endorsed websites that provide free pro bono services to inventors. Further, the USPTO also permits law school students to practice IP law under the guidance of law school faculty supervisor and provides a list of participating law schools on its website. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

Prior art is a concept in patent law used to determine the patentability of an invention, in particular whether an invention meets the novelty and the inventive step or non-obviousness criteria for patentability. In most systems of patent law, prior art is generally defined as anything that is made available, or disclosed, to the public that might be relevant to a patent's claim before the effective filing date of a patent application for an invention. However, notable differences exist in how prior art is specifically defined under different national, regional, and international patent systems.

A submarine patent is a patent whose issuance and publication are intentionally delayed by the applicant for a long time, which can be several years, or a decade. This strategy requires a patent system where, first, patent applications are not published, and, second, patent term is measured from grant date, not from priority or filing date. In the United States, patent applications filed before November 2000 were not published and remained secret until they were granted. Analogous to a submarine, submarine patents could remain "under water" for long periods until they "emerged", surprising the relevant market. Persons or companies making use of submarine patents are sometimes referred to as patent pirates.

Novelty is one of the patentability requirement for a patent claim, whose purpose is to prevent issuing patents on known things, i.e. to prevent public knowledge from being taken away from the public domain.

Under United States patent law, a continuing patent application is a patent application that follows, and claims priority to, an earlier-filed patent application. A continuing patent application may be one of three types: a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part. Although continuation and continuation-in-part applications are generally available in the U.S. only, divisional patent applications are also available in other countries, as such availability is required under Article 4G of the Paris Convention.

An interference proceeding, also known as a priority contest, is an inter partes proceeding to determine the priority issues of multiple patent applications. It is a proceeding unique to the patent law of the United States. Unlike in most other countries, which have long had a first-to-file system, until the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011, the United States operated under a first-to-invent. The interference proceeding determines which of several patent applications had been made by the first inventor.

In United States patent law, the reduction to practice is the step in the formation of an invention beyond the conception thereof. Reduction to practice may be either actual or constructive. The date of reduction to practice was critical to the determination of priority between inventors in an interference proceeding under the discontinued first-to-invent system as well as for swearing behind a reference under that system.

Patent prosecution describes the interaction between applicants and their representatives, and a patent office with regard to a patent, or an application for a patent. Broadly, patent prosecution can be split into pre-grant prosecution, which involves arguing before, and sometimes negotiation with, a patent office for the grant of a patent, and post-grant prosecution, which involves issues such as post-grant amendment and opposition.

Under United States patent law, the term of patent, provided that maintenance fees are paid on time, is 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. or international (PCT) application to which priority is claimed.

Sufficiency of disclosure or enablement is a patent law requirement that a patent application disclose a claimed invention in sufficient detail so that the person skilled in the art could carry out that claimed invention. The requirement is fundamental to patent law: a monopoly is granted for a given period of time in exchange for a disclosure to the public how to make or practice the invention.

The Patent Reform Act of 2005 was United States patent legislation proposed in the 109th United States Congress. Texas Republican Congressman Lamar S. Smith introduced the Act on 8 June 2005. Smith called the Act "the most comprehensive change to U.S. patent law since Congress passed the 1952 Patent Act." The Act proposed many of the recommendations made by a 2003 report by the Federal Trade Commission and a 2004 report by the National Academy of Sciences.

The USA is considered to have the most favorable legal regime for inventors and patent owners in the World. Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting of a patented technology without the consent of the patent-holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.

In patent law, an inventor is the person, or persons in United States patent law, who contribute to the claims of a patentable invention. In some patent law frameworks, however, such as in the European Patent Convention (EPC) and its case law, no explicit, accurate definition of who exactly is an inventor is provided. The definition may slightly vary from one European country to another. Inventorship is generally not considered to be a patentability criterion under European patent law.

A patent application is a request pending at a patent office for the grant of a patent for an invention described in the patent specification and a set of one or more claims stated in a formal document, including necessary official forms and related correspondence. It is the combination of the document and its processing within the administrative and legal framework of the patent office.

This is a list of legal terms relating to patents and patent law. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention claimed therein, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or his successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.

An information disclosure statement refers to a submission of relevant background art or information to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by an applicant for a patent during the patent prosecution process. There is a duty on all patent applicants to disclose relevant art or background information that the applicant is aware of and that may be relevant to the patentability of the applicant's invention, as established by the United States Code title 35 and related sections of 37 CFR and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). If a patent applicant, with deceptive intent for art known to the applicant, fails to submit material prior art to the USPTO, then any patent that later issues from the patent application may be declared unenforceable because of inequitable conduct. Furthermore, the duty to submit such relevant information to the USPTO lies not only on the applicant or inventor, but also on any patent attorney or other legal staff employed by the applicant.

Title 35 of the United States Code is a title of United States Code regarding patent law. The sections of Title 35 govern all aspects of patent law in the United States. There are currently 37 chapters, which include 376 sections, in Title 35.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian patent law</span>

Canadian patent law is the legal system regulating the granting of patents for inventions within Canada, and the enforcement of these rights in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Backlog of unexamined patent applications</span>

Although not clearly defined, the backlog of unexamined patent applications consists, at one point in time, of all the patent applications that have been filed and still remain to be examined. The backlog was said to be 4.2 million worldwide in 2007, and in 2009 it reportedly continued to grow. Alone, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was reported to have, in 2009, a backlog of more than 700,000 patent applications.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leahy–Smith America Invents Act</span>

The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is a United States federal statute that was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. The law represents the most significant legislative change to the U.S. patent system since the Patent Act of 1952 and closely resembles previously proposed legislation in the Senate in its previous session.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Novelty and non-obviousness in Canadian patent law</span>

For a patent to be valid in Canada, the invention claimed therein needs to be new and inventive. In patent law, these requirements are known as novelty and non-obviousness. A patent cannot in theory be granted for an invention without meeting these basic requirements or at least, if a patent which does not meet these requirements is granted, it cannot later be maintained. These requirements are borne out of a combination of statute and case law.

References

  1. ↑ David Pressman, Patent It Yourself, Nolo Press, 2006, page 56, ISBN   1-4133-0516-4.
  2. ↑ 35 U.S.C. 113 Drawings Archived June 1, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  3. 1 2 "Current Fee Schedule" (PDF). Retrieved May 6, 2021.
  4. ↑ Ladas & Parry LLP (2009-07-17). "A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States". Archived from the original on 2013-01-15. Retrieved 2010-11-05. The basic structure of the present law was adopted in 1952. ... Since 1952, the law has been amended several times and has continued to develop by way of case law. ... Some of the major changes that have been made since 1952 are as follows: ... 1994 ... Introduced the possibility of filing provisional patent applications. 35 USC 111(b) and 119(e)
  5. ↑ Chisum, Donald (2010). "Volume 4A, Chapter 14 Priority by Foreign Filing, § 14.02 Historical Development". Chisum on Patents. Seattle: Matthew Bender/LexisNexis.
  6. 1 2 Provisional Application for Patent published by the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
  7. ↑ USPTO Implements Pilot Program
  8. ↑ "37 C.F.R. 1.78(a)(4)" . Retrieved 2007-09-01.
  9. ↑ "35 U.S.C. 111(b)(5)" . Retrieved 2007-09-01.
  10. ↑ For the purpose of claiming the priority of a subsequent provisional application (e.g. a second provisional application) in a PCT application or foreign (non-US) application under the Paris Convention, the filing of the subsequent provisional application will only be the starting date of another valid priority year if, at the time of filing the subsequent provisional application, the first provisional application has been withdrawn, abandoned, or refused, without having been laid open to public inspection and without leaving any rights outstanding, and if it (the first provisional application) has not yet served as a basis for claiming a right of priority. The first provisional application may not thereafter serve as a basis for claiming a right of priority. See Article 4 C. (4) of the Paris Convention.
  11. ↑ "MPEP".
  12. ↑ "Provisional Patent Applications". Archived from the original on 2007-08-16. Retrieved 2007-09-01. "The importance of this is that you can lock in your priority filing date with the provisional application, while at the same time you are permitted to apply the coveted term "Patent Pending" to your invention and/or products. This is important because you cannot use the term "patent pending" or "patent applied" legally in the U.S. unless you do actually have some kind of a patent application on file with the Patent Office."
  13. ↑ "Patent Pro Bono Program for independent inventors and small businesses".
  14. ↑ "Law School Clinic Certification Program".
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.